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.
You'll probably find the "newest" ones in the battle report subforum of the official forums. Given that my several years old blitz comic book style "Tales from Terra Nova!" report is still on their front page, it's not a particularly busy place. For living rulebook game report videos, you've pretty much just got Ash. The civilian gamer channel has a ton of old blitz ones but they seem to be waiting out what shakes out the other end just like the rest of us. Ease of play and popularity are two important things out of many that this multiyear project is supposed to address.
Hopefully! If not, that would explain the "accuracy" of some of my FO's in the past.
And on a personal hobby note, my RAFM fire support squad is converted and complete (minus the bases and possibly a non-grizzly model depending on what I do with the Kodiak).
I have to say I thought the Kodiak would have been bigger than the others. I guess I'm used to the blitz era relative class sizes whereas the RAFM stuff is from the old RPG stats.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/11 19:09:10
JohnHwangDD wrote:They do look rather nice after all these years, but I'm going to stick with my 1/144 stuff.
It was definitely a nostalgia fueled spur of the moment (if you can call something that took two weeks to do that) purchase without much reason. You're probably better off with the current scale metals in any case fora variety of reasons. As I detailed on my blog and over on the dp9 forums, the QA on some of the rafm minis was pretty bad. The rabid grizzly had a variant armored hunter head because a USED old yellow superglued head is what was in the sealed blister instead of the proper grizzly head sprue. Also, the grizzly family (as well as cobras) were some of the best translated designs. The others look kind of squat TBH (see my ID these minis pic from a few weeks back). It is nice though that the variants were individually sculpted unlike alot of ones in current blitz. I thought I had a weird miscast for instance as the Kodiak Destroyer didn't have any chevrons on his waist/groin plates unlike most pics of Kodiaks I've seen as well as current blitz ones. When I took a look in the RPG compendium, they were specifically absent as well and the whole model was a complete resculpt and not just a weapon swap like currently.
Firebreak wrote:Just the mass of them. Those are some solid (-looking) damn minis!
That they are although they're not as big as my 15 year old memories made them out to be. The cheetahs and troopers are relatively huge though compared to their modern scale counterparts but also a bit too squat in appearance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/12 23:15:42
2016/06/13 08:12:16
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
Yeah, truth be told getting RAFM Gears is mostly a nostalgia-filled endeavour, as even though the stuff is cool, they are not really top quality.
OTOH, an actual Heavy Gear Skirmish game (Gear squad-on-squad, with combined arms support) on that scale or even a tad bigger could be really cool, and the RAFM stuff proves that well done they could be magnificent minis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/13 08:12:59
Speaking of combined arms and infantry (earlier), which of the various HG infantry flavors looks the most like current ~2016 US / Russian / German military troops?
I'm thinking I need to buy a platoon of HG infantry for my stuff. or maybe just regular 1/144 modern infantry.
Albertorius wrote:Yeah, truth be told getting RAFM Gears is mostly a nostalgia-filled endeavour, as even though the stuff is cool, they are not really top quality.
OTOH, an actual Heavy Gear Skirmish game (Gear squad-on-squad, with combined arms support) on that scale or even a tad bigger could be really cool, and the RAFM stuff proves that well done they could be magnificent minis.
That's true. I'm curious to see if the new rules actually get folks to play with a bigger fig count on average or if they'll play with the same 6-12 on average figs and just actually finish the game in a reasonable time. If the model count doesn't bump, I might actually be able to use RAFM figs. I suppose I could use the RAFM figs with my existing DZC city terrain as well or alternately with anything 15mm (although they'll look big in both). The 15mm should be fine (even though the infantry is a bit closer when I measured them to 20mm to the top of the head, 18mm to the eyes) but the 10mm stuff will definitely make them look much more like mecha than the oversized power armor they are. It might be fine though to have the gears be titanfall videogame sized/scale rather than votom anime sized.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Speaking of combined arms and infantry (earlier), which of the various HG infantry flavors looks the most like current ~2016 US / Russian / German military troops?
I'm thinking I need to buy a platoon of HG infantry for my stuff. or maybe just regular 1/144 modern infantry.
Honestly, neither polar force looks particularly historical.
The larger scale rafm stuff looks even more scifi.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/13 17:58:45
Grel are all angry and bald, Caprice have the big bug eye space helmets, and nucoal have a scifi video game look with a voltron helmet (but with a "beak" over the nose for the visor) in the art.. I don't know how much translated over to 12mm figs though. I can't comment about PRDF as I don't recall what they look like... but I'm sure they're better looking than everyone else and cost less for the faction to dress to keep with the their theme.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/13 19:39:25
warboss wrote: nucoal have a scifi video game look with a voltron helmet (but with a "beak" over the nose for the visor) in the art..
I can't comment about PRDF as I don't recall what they look like... but I'm sure they're better than everyone else and cost less for the faction to equip.
Wait, Voltron??? Not Science Ninja Team Gatchaman? The gold standard of beaked helmets? And it got made as live action!
You gatchame, man! IIRC the nucoal ones ended at the nose but with a similar beak. At first I was going to compare them to silverhawks but then I googled the images and it didn't match (must be some other cartoon I'm thinking of). Those are close though but they need more gas grenade ammo belts on the chest.
2016/06/14 09:01:35
Subject: Re:[Heavy Gear] General Discussion Thread
Well, as warboss says, as a general rule HG troopers look kind of sci fi and don't really go much for historical.
Northern troopers usually look like this:
...with also more esoteric uniforms, like paratroopers, engineers or spec ops:
Southern ones look like these:
...although they have plenty of weird uniforms and scifi thingies for specialized troopers like forward observers, drone operators, engineers, PMs. Spec Ops might look downright bizarre, too.
Paxton troopers' helmets are quite characteristic:
Desert Raiders (Koreshi) and the like have gear adapted to the desert, obviously:
Likewise jungle troopers:
Hell, even police SWATs might look very scifi:
Other than being purple, GRELs have a very distinct look:
You might say that capricians are the most "regular" looking of the lot :
@Albertorious as well as anyone else in the thread with Rafm gears:
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a bunch of jaguars handy to look at? I'm not sure if I got another mispack or what but every Jag blister I opened had a different head. The fire jag I expected thanks to Albertorious' earlier clarification but the jag predator had the more modern angular head whereas the stock Jag had a curvy hunter head (excctly a hunter head) with the hunter v-engine sprue in the pack (along with two bunny ears). Was that a cost saving measure by Rafm to reuse sculpted bits or is that yet another sealed blister mispack? I'll try and post some pics tomorrow of the parts in question.
warboss wrote: @Albertorious as well as anyone else in the thread with Rafm gears:
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a bunch of jaguars handy to look at? I'm not sure if I got another mispack or what but every Jag blister I opened had a different head. The fire jag I expected thanks to Albertorious' earlier clarification but the jag predator had the more modern angular head whereas the stock Jag had a curvy hunter head (excctly a hunter head) with the hunter v-engine sprue in the pack (along with two bunny ears). Was that a cost saving measure by Rafm to reuse sculpted bits or is that yet another sealed blister mispack? I'll try and post some pics tomorrow of the parts in question.
I don't have any handy right now, but...
That's the original pic of the Pred Jaguar, which was used for the RAFM mini, so it should have an old style Jaguar head.
Thanks. I took a look at my 1st ed core book as well as a few others and that's how I came to realize that angular head is probably the modern head but the curvy one is literally the same sprues in a tiny bag (same head, same engine, same bunny ears, same apgl) as I can see in my hunter blisters. The other two I have are fire jaguars which have their own unique head and aren't a great comparison.
I just don't know if that was a shortcut for the original stock jaguar to save RAFM some money originally or they mistakenly took a hunter plastic bits bag and put it in the jaguar mispack. If you (or anyone) have a stock jaguar (curvy head type) and almost any hunter and can compare the heads and engines, that should solve the question.
edit: I remembered about this image. I'm pretty sure I have yet another major mispack. So far, it's one issue with every 3 blisters. My head and smaller engine is definitely the hunter's and not the stock Jaguar's.
The angular head though is correct as it matches John Prin's pic from his predator Jaguar (the basis for my conversion).
FWIW, KOG light no longer intends to be a Heavy Gear game. Instead, it is its own, different game set here on Earth in the near future. It still uses HG miniatures "count as", and I'm stealing certain stats for now, but those will change as I rebalance. Check it out for grins if you haven't already done so!
JohnHwangDD wrote: FWIW, KOG light no longer intends to be a Heavy Gear game. Instead, it is its own, different game set here on Earth in the near future. It still uses HG miniatures "count as", and I'm stealing certain stats for now, but those will change as I rebalance. Check it out for grins if you haven't already done so!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Getting back to my CEF Frames, I own:
1x CF6-16 command
1x F6-16 basic
2x F2-21 tactical
2x F2-25 recon
3x F2-19 support
Is there a reason why I wouldn't fit everything with Jump Jets?
For Frame loadouts:
The CF6-16, I assume best build is with more sensors?
Regular F6-16 gets the support mortar?
F2-21s go 1 Assault & 1 Anti-Tank? Or should the assault swap to support mortar?
F2-25 recon don't need sensor upgrade so also go 1 Assault & 1 Anti-Tank?
The F2-19 heavies go 1 of each weapon flavor (assault, anti-tank, and support) for variety.
If I build as above, are these "OK", or am I doing something stupid?
How come the default pictures always seem to show as Anti-Tank? And the 2-21 is Anti-Tank plus shield?
I assume you're talking current beta rules, here:
Jump Jets: Frames don't have access to actual jump jets, but jumpacks, which are a lot less useful except because they can jump higher. Instead of being an addition to the regular movemen like jumpjets, a unit equipped with a jumpack can do a jump move instead of a regular one, which means basically that the additional cost of the jumpacks won't make them move any faster (actually, the jetpack movement is slower), but give them more movement options. So I'd say it's kind of situational.
CF6-16: Sensors are not that important, but Comms are.
Regular F6-16 only gets a mortar with the Support Pack.
BF2-21: For the cost I'd say that the Assault pack is more generally useful (good damage value, decent range, Split), plus it has a Shield. The AT pack has only 2 ATMs and are light ones. Still, the AT value coupled with Haywire makes them very nice against big targets, so I'd say one of each. Also, if you want mortars, pick GRELs, and use the Frames to advance with their high mobility.
BF2-25: You'd probably be able to use the improved Comms and the TD to paint targets for your HT's ATMs, so there's that. Otherwise... see if you prefer to have a Shield or 2 LATMs.
I think that the default pictures are of the AT packages because painting big red dots help greak the monotony of the paint scheme.
If the Jets only allow the model to negate some vertical terrain, that's not really worth 2 points per model on an 8- or 10-point model. OTOH, if you know you're in an urban setting with buildings of just the right height, yeah, I can see that. I'm assuming this is some sort of sore point from days long gone by.
Thanks very much for the input on the various frames. Much appreciated!
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
:
