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.

Or infantry. The PRDF Observer team gets Comms:1 and TD:1 for the same price that southern and northern only get one of the two.

Also, just noticed that the Warrior is only W:4 compared to the Hunter/jager W:5. Can't say whether that makes up for the ECM:1 and better EW stat.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Or infantry. The PRDF Observer team gets Comms:1 and TD:1 for the same price that southern and northern only get one of the two.

Also, just noticed that the Warrior is only W:4 compared to the Hunter/jager W:5. Can't say whether that makes up for the ECM:1 and better EW stat.

Good catch on the walker stats. I'd say it is and (as one of the biggest detractors of Paxton in the initial rollout 2-3 years ago both for blitz and nublitz) I don't have any issues with the basic warrior compared with the hunter/jager now. Kudos to Dave for that.

As for the inantry, at least for the north the unit is a squad and not a team and gets 4+ comms so I'd say that's a fair trade off. Given a choice, I'd still pick the paxton version as hands down an autosuccess on the TD FO is better than some added survivability (but even more useless when crippled) but I think they're roughly equivalent at least at the granular points value we have (3). I'm not so sure about the southern equiv though as it's still a team and loses the TD (but "gains" 4+ EW which isn't quite as useful since it still has comms 1). That one feels like it might be worth 1 pt lower unless there is a hidden boost/combo that I'm not noticing but that would need some playtesting.

I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit.
XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.

@Warboss
My book says that the North gets TD infantry (squad, EW 4+). If you can keep it near what it's TDing for, you should get the buff with no roll.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit.
XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.

@Warboss
My book says that the North gets TD infantry (squad, EW 4+). If you can keep it near what it's TDing for, you should get the buff with no roll.

Apologies if this is outdated (file on my phone) but is this below not the case here? This is from the July 17th version of the rules and I think one came out two days later that I didn't update on mobile devices.

A Comms roll is used to transmit targeting information to other ready model or to a Commander model that can direct a response. Receivers of Comms rolls that are in
Formation with the origin model still require a successful Comms roll by the Origin model to be Receivers.

FO is a comms roll so even if you're nearby the firing model you still need to roll. Is there an exception elsewhere? I didn't see it under FO either although I did see that the FO range increased to sensor range (yay!) instead of just a blanket 12".

Yeah, I missed that change. Or read it wrong initially.

Also, it seems that the Assault Grizzly and Strike Grizzly varients have been removed (But the Destroyer Grizzly got a point cheaper)

So... If you can't build it in the new plastics, it doesn't exist?

Well the only difference between a strike grizzly and a destroyer grizzly is that the strike is 14 pts with a MBZ, while the Destroyer is 15 pts with a HBZ. Now the Destroyer is 14 pts. I guess with the points change, they felt that no one would want the strike.

As for the assault, no clue. Maybe you're right? Maybe it'll be back in an update?

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, I missed that change. Or read it wrong initially.

Also, it seems that the Assault Grizzly and Strike Grizzly varients have been removed (But the Destroyer Grizzly got a point cheaper)

Was there ever a strike grizzly? Yeah, the assault (mbzk) is gone and replaced (at least again on the july 17th file) with the grizzly destroyer (hbzk). I'm fine with the change as its an easy counts as and I came across it with the earlier version of the file (it's not a new change iirc). I was unsure how to model my Rafm bazooka armed grizzly 2-3 months ago because I wasn't sure if the assault grizzly would come back. The current one is a mix between the regular grizzly, assault, and destroyer variants iirc with parts from each.

The assault had a MSC. It's from a about two (beta) books back.

 Mmmpi wrote:
The assault had a MSC. It's from a about two (beta) books back.

Ah, thanks. I skipped a few in between due to a lack of interest. I was going off of the old RPG variants and (to a lesser extent) previous blitz rules.

Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...

 Mmmpi wrote:
I figured out how to get a 2nd TD in a skirmisher unit.
XO's and 2nd In Commands are on the list of commanders. So they can be given CMD variants. You just have to pay an extra +3/+2 pts.

Good catch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...

Probably because ACs have better range.

John Prins wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...

Probably because ACs have better range.

Not on a 4'x6' 1/144-scale battlefield, they don't...

Ammo for an auto cannon is FAR less expensive to make. It off sets the higher cost of the weapon immensely.

A WWII bazooka cost $19 in 1945, with each rocket costing about $25 (depending on type). It took on average 4 shots to kill a tank. $100.

A M1 Garand in 1945 cost $32, but it cost 1.3 cents per round, or just over 26 cents for a box of twenty. It took on average 1600 shots to kill an enemy $20.80.

Granted an enemy soldier isn't a tank...


Also, while I know you're joking, I got curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The AC has a third more range according to the rules.

Not THAT big a difference considering it's a difference of 6" (12" max) range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it was something like a 12"-18" (max +18") than we'd be talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As it is a 4' board scales to 576 feet, or .109 miles. A light AC should at this scale have an optimum range of 440'.

Taking the same scale and applying it to movement (using the cheetah), (and assuming a 15 seconds for each turn) means a Cheetah's max speed is 4.9 mph (9.8 if it double moves).

Exactly, I wasn't being entirely facetious.

In HG, the enemy is a light tank, that in-universe, is immune to anti-infantry weapons, so using a bolt-action rifle isn't a fair comparison. If you look at the cost of a fully-automatic BAR, it was $319 in 1945.

An 20mm Flak-38 cannon that's actually designed to take out (light) vehicles? $2400

And that's just the weapon itself, without the cost of ammo. From an economic standpoint, it would be dramatically cheaper to outfit Gears with Bazookas as the default anti-Gear weapon.

If one accepts that computer targeting by the Gear itself is possible, then you're using large Mortars are the obvious item, which again, are dirt cheap. Just another big tube, but pointed upward.

And of course, one notes that 1.2m x 144 is a mere 175 meters - well within range of any of those weapons!

A modern 60mm mortar has a minimum range of 231' (about 19" minimum range at 1/144), most vehicle mortars wouldn't be able to hit anything on the board.

Edited to remove the blatantly obvious.

Is that mortar firing guided shells? Probably not. Guided Mortars with a minimum 6" range should seem to be feasible, and non-guided weapons might be 12+".

On a 4' x 6' board, Gears could use Bazookas for close-in work, direct fire up to 4', with indirect fire Mortars for anything more than 1' away, with a fairly large range overlap between the two.

The other side of this Auto-cannon/bazooka debate is the bazooka.

Without a loader it's a one shot weapon, and I don't see a gear being dedicated to just carrying/reloading bazookas.

So to increase the weapon's battlefield endurance you have to add a magazine, which also generally means smaller rockets, if only to fit into a feed mechanism smaller than the actual weapon itself.

In addition, the smaller the rockets, the faster the mechanism can load them, increasing fire rate.

So do you use a few big rockets: Fire/load/fire/load (delay as the magazine loads the next large round)

A larger number of medium rockets: Fire/Fire/Fire/Fire/Fire

Or a *&%&-ton of small rockets: DakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakkaDakka

The first is basically still a bazooka, the 2nd closer to a (recoiless) rifle, the third is we just (kinda) reinvented the auto-cannon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Or course, when we look at the tech associated with making a Bazooka (a rocket in a tube), vs an autocannon, I don't understand why those aren't the default weapon for every Gear...

I would assume that mainly for the same reasons that infantry carry assault rifles intead of all Carl Gustavs

I hav'nt looked over the rules as of late.

Are things looking up for the system?

Scale being what it is, a Gear reloading a 75mm bazooka is akin to an ordinary man reloading a break-action 12 ga shotgun.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly, I wasn't being entirely facetious.

In HG, the enemy is a light tank, that in-universe, is immune to anti-infantry weapons, so using a bolt-action rifle isn't a fair comparison. If you look at the cost of a fully-automatic BAR, it was $319 in 1945.

An 20mm Flak-38 cannon that's actually designed to take out (light) vehicles? $2400

And that's just the weapon itself, without the cost of ammo. From an economic standpoint, it would be dramatically cheaper to outfit Gears with Bazookas as the default anti-Gear weapon.

If one accepts that computer targeting by the Gear itself is possible, then you're using large Mortars are the obvious item, which again, are dirt cheap. Just another big tube, but pointed upward.

And of course, one notes that 1.2m x 144 is a mere 175 meters - well within range of any of those weapons!

Well, amount of ammo carried will certainly be an issue, as you can carry much more autogun bullets than mortar/bazooka projectiles. As an example, an Assault Hunter only has 3 shot of its Snub Cannon,which although is good enough for dedicated tank hunting, it's not exactly ideal for regular combat conditions.

OTOH, the old Hunter Zerstörer Mk. II and Hunter Commando had a LBZK with 30 shots, which I'd agree is a very good main weapon if you're expecting to shoot at Gears, and demonstrably shows that it's physically possible to do it in-setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Scale being what it is, a Gear reloading a 75mm bazooka is akin to an ordinary man reloading a break-action 12 ga shotgun.

I'm not sure that Gears not dedicated specifically to loading would have the manual dexterity to load a shotgun bullet by bullet (which I agree would be akin to)... but that's why there are clips, which Gears use by default. Having additional clips would make them have the Hazardous Ammo Storage Flaw, though, which can be a problem.

Sure, sure. If I'm going hunting, I can carry a lot more .22LR than .30-06 (or 12 ga), but which one is actually dropping the deer when it hits?

That's what I don't get about HG, because we all know that LACs do a lot of nothing, like hunting with peashooters. At some point, some smart guy has to notice that LACs are as obsolete as Panzer 2s in Late War armor combat.

ok...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sure, sure. If I'm going hunting, I can carry a lot more .22LR than .30-06 (or 12 ga), but which one is actually dropping the deer when it hits?

That's what I don't get about HG, because we all know that LACs do a lot of nothing, like hunting with wadcutters.

Up to a point. They are very effective against regular light combat vehicles (APCs, trucks, emplacements and the like) and are effective against trooper Gears (which in the game it meant that they did Light damage to one with MoS 2, and overkill with a single MoS 6 shot), and also useful even against infantry due to rapid fire. They were also able to do walking fire, concentrated fire and cover fire, which gives them a wider range of possibilities. Also, the Gears that were armed with them by default were also armed with Rocket packs for heavier work and grenades and vibroknifes for close quarters.

Of course, out of the equation now are the special ammo cartridges you could equip ACs with, which leveled the field more, too.

All that said, though, the main reason has always been because they're seen as troopers, and troopers carry rifles. Dumb, but there it is. Same reasons why space marines carry around boltguns even when against other marines they hit at 3+, wound at 4+ and the save at 3+ I guess ^_^

bound for glory wrote:
I hav'nt looked over the rules as of late.

Are things looking up for the system?

Yup. The rules are free and the plastics are alot cheaper. If this doesn't help the IP grow, nothing will. The company still engages in the occasional shennanigans if that matters to you. If you've got minis left over from previous eras, you can download the rules for free to try them out. They're the first really new rules in 20 years which so you'll have to determine yourself whether it's an improvement. I will say that they're quicker though.

So with the last Kickstarter update, we'll be getting a whole lot of new plastics soon, eh?

I stopped by the booth at Gencon, and I gotta say the plastics are not that bad. Of course, they didn't have any of the metal sculpts to compare the new plastics to, but that's OK in my book. New players will probably have nothing but the plastic stuff anyways. The Grel Flails still looked kinda bad, but not as bad as the pictures online. I was really impressed with the Caprice models. They turned out fantastic! The CEF tanks were not as bad either; though I think they could have done some more with them. /shrug

I had a nice long chat with Dave about the Black Talons. Seems they (DP9) are on the fence about what to do with them. They really don't want a small, elite style army in the game for obvious reasons. Less model sales and competitive players will very much use them. On the other hand, the Black Talons are an integral part of the fluff, and they just can't retcon them out. There is also the issue of production. It's very, very expensive to have a plastic mold cut for the Claw series- with the current rules, you might run a Vulture, maybe 1-2 Eagles, and an Owl or Raven. After that, it's all Dark Series. As they already have the metal molds for the Dark series, it's easy enough to just pump out metal upgrade kits for the plastics. Basically, we won't be seeing plastic Claw gears any time soon, if ever. One of the things Dave and I discussed was the small, commando style nature of the Black Talons, and how they might be a small part of a larger force on the table. Maybe expect that to be the ultimate play style of the Black Talons when the new book comes out.

There is a lot of optimism in this new edition that I hope will enable the game to really take off. Certainly with all the models I'm getting in the KS, there is no reason why I can't demo the game at the local FLGS and maybe get some new players. It would be awesome to add Heavy Gear to a weekly game along side 40K and Warmachine/Hordes.

In playtesting, I advocated for turning the black talons into an optional ally for all TN factions. You'd basically get to use them as your one allowed veteran squad or more in an elite army (with the restriction that your "allies" had to be 25% or less of your total points). I don't think that allies restriction made it into the normal game though and obviously neither did Talons as an ally only force. That's not necessarily great for BT only players but frankly that "faction" was utterly broken in Blitz needing multiple points boosts and they still weren't any fun to play against (or with if you had any shame) and should never have been solo in the game for default normal play (special scenario or campaign play is another story though). YMMV.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The new GW 32mm bases are just about perfect for many of the gears.

I really don't understand why they continue to use those horrible, hex slotted bases.

Thanks, GW 32mm it is!

Welp, swung by the GW store, threw $5 at the till and grabbed a pack of 10x 32mm bases to rebase my Southern stuff.

 warboss wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
I hav'nt looked over the rules as of late.

Are things looking up for the system?

Yup. The rules are free and the plastics are alot cheaper. If this doesn't help the IP grow, nothing will. The company still engages in the occasional shennanigans if that matters to you. If you've got minis left over from previous eras, you can download the rules for free to try them out. They're the first really new rules in 20 years which so you'll have to determine yourself whether it's an improvement. I will say that they're quicker though.

I was thinking of taking advantage of the great prices on Amazon, ATM.

Can't beat those with a stick. Mean to say, I was going to buy a few sets to use as some sort(not thought too deeply into it as yet)ofpowered armor units in GRUNTZ.

But then i got to thinking I could use them for Heavy Gear