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.

Having just played with the new Blitz rules, we had a 2-on-2 match with each player going at 50 TV.

The details can be found on the Blitz Development forum:

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16724

I call Shennanigans. If that really happened in Texas, someone would be wearing a big hat! Hope you had fun!

LOL, too cold. I wore a beanie.

And yes, loads of fun. Pizza, Pepsi, chewing fat and rags with some awesome older players (both of whom are big on Warhammer Epic and Battletech, and great commission painters), Warphound kept everything in the Beta straight.

A couple things I would like to suggest changes for, but I also learned that being timid with Strike Cadres is unwise. The suggestion by Awash is pertinent. Had we played short edge to short edge we probably would have seen a lot more contact.

But for a two hour game with four players talking and one young Magic player interested and asking loads of questions, we were well off. Just preliminary introductions went on longer than the actual game while we admired their work and talked old military times.

I look forward to our next get together when the holidays shake out. The South will rise again! (Coming from a Yankee Hoosier that sounds so wrong somehow... LOL)

Only 10 models a side, and it took more than 2 hours? Was that excessively slow? Or did you feel the timing was OK?

I thought it was fine. We almost had finished the third turn.

We arrived at around 1830, everyone there at 1900. We started jacking and jawing, and introducing, you know how it goes. We finally set up around 2130, and played until 2330. We finished two turns and we're into our third turn.

We spent a great deal discussing the rules, learning Postures and traits. That, and the board was really just too long to adequately cover at Combat Speed, which I used to try and keep myself from overextending. Foolish on my part, you have to risk something to win something.

One big suggestion Warphound made was datacards, which I probably will make some. I had forgotten entirely about Burst adding 1d6 to rolls for autocannons, I might have gotten his Strike Jaguar in that second turn.

But shoulda, coulda, woulda. I will remember next game.

Adding and subtracting dice for cover and concealment and sub-optimal range is intuitive after a few minutes learning it, just remembering all the varieties requires you have the list out.

Edit: Sorry, excitement made me forget. Happy Thanksgiving ya'll!

An hour per turn of 10 models per side? 3 minutes per model seems like it'd be OK, but is actually kinda slow.

It sounds like the game caps out at a dozen models, not 20 per side, and it still wants to be more like a half-dozen for a standard 2-3 hour game block.

You read the thread John?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
An hour per turn of 10 models per side? 3 minutes per model seems like it'd be OK, but is actually kinda slow.

It sounds like the game caps out at a dozen models, not 20 per side, and it still wants to be more like a half-dozen for a standard 2-3 hour game block.

For a beginning game I thing that is reasonable.

Once you have the system I think it will get a lot faster. Its fairly intuitive as far as what effects the dice pool.

Brandon, was that the first game with the new style rules for most or all of the players? If you're just learning a new ruleset, I see no problem with the timeframe you posted in a 2v2 game. That sounds typical, not slow.

Warboss, yeah. First game ever for three of us, Warphound had some prior experience. But it was me, not the new guys, who really slowed it down by going short edge to short edge. I promise to play on a smaller table the next time.

BrandonKF wrote:
You read the thread John?

Yes, hence the questions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrandonKF wrote:
You read the thread John?

Yes, hence the questions.

Okay.

I had hoped that my explanation was clear enough that I should have started us on a smaller table.

But Warphound also suggested that we follow the rules and go with a third of the way up the board. At that time I was unaware of that small deployment issue, and the others and myself agreed that we would start where the tape started. So it was my fault for saying, "Let's just start here."

But either way, the update is on the verge of coming out, and by that point we should see some very major changes in the make-up of the rules. Most particularly tracking of damage.

-Brandon F.

BrandonKF wrote:

But either way, the update is on the verge of coming out, and by that point we should see some very major changes in the make-up of the rules. Most particularly tracking of damage.

-Brandon F.

Haven't been keeping current with the news so I had to see what you were talking about. It looks like the damage system is changing radically again. I don't obviously have any experience with it (no one but Dave likely does) so I can't comment if it is for better or worse. I do hope folks seriously spreadsheet the hell out of it to see if the *ACTUAL* damage results reflect what HG says *SHOULD* be the results unlike with Blitz where supposedly tough units (like -1 Man FS super gears like Kodiaks) were less survivable than obsolete trooper or even recon gears. If there is another big update, I'm curious to see what army building changes occurred (if any) as well. I'm always fearful of a two steps forward, one back (or even the reverse) situation. Looks like Dave has been busy since the KS.

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16691

Update for the Pledge Manager:

-------


"Our second Post Kickstarter Update is to announce that the Pledge Manager is now live and that Invites are being sent out. We imported all the Backer info received from Kickstarter (Backer name, email address, pledge level and amount pledged) into the Pledge Manager. Backers will receive an email invite to login to the Pledge Manger and setup their account, with their full name, address and phone number.

Before you do that we want to give you a quick preview of the Pledge Manager and how to use it after you have setup your account. When you start you will have a Balance of what you pledged on the Kickstarter minus the Reward Pledge Level you selected and the $15 shipping for US and Canadian Backers. If your an International Backer the shipping is deferred until we know the exact weight of your Backer Reward Package later in 2015. If your a $500 Heavy Gear Universe Level Backer the Reward Level includes free shipping.

Below is a screen capture of the Pledge Manage with a $500 Heavy Gear Universe Pledge, and a $0 Balance remaining, after the Reward level and add-ons had been selected using the total balance. At this point you should click the "Save Selections - Blue Button" below the Balance, this will save your reward level and all the add-ons you have selected and allow you to make changes or additions later on. Don't click the "Submit & Lock Order - Green Button" for now as we plan to do some additional crowd sourcing to unlock a few more of the stretch goals.

If you hit the Green Button it will lock you order and send you a confirmation email, and you won't be able to make any changes. The Fundafull team is working on an update for us that will allow Backers to unlock an order that was submitted and locked by accident, and it should be ready in the next week or two, until then you would need to send in a request to Dream Pod 9 to get it unlocked.

If you only pledged the basic $115 CAD for the Core Starter Set during the Kickstarter and your in the US or Canada the Pledge Manage will add the $15 shipping and show you a Balance Due of $15 in Red and a new "Pay Balance Now - Gold Button" will appear. The "Pay Balance Now - Gold Button" will appear as soon as you add more rewards than you have money pledged in your Balance.

If you click the button with ask for your info and credit card number, we are using an online service caller Stripe to process credit cards securely. Once its paid the Balance will show $0.00 in Green and the "Submit & Lock Order - Green Button" will appear again.

Please note that all additional pledges made and added to your account to cover the shipping or for additional rewards are non-refundable. We are able to keep track of these additional pledges and see what applies to shipping. This information will be used later for unlocking some of the stretch goals not reached during the Kickstarter. We'll announced all the details in next week's update.

The Pledge Manager will remain open until all the Backer Reward Packages are shipped out later in 2015. And you'll be able to make changes and get more add-ons for the next several months while we are working the 3D Models and getting the plastic injection molds produced.

Thank you again everyone for your amazing support."


----

Okay, time for me to check things out. God bless!

-Brandon

There have been some teething problems with the pledge manager but they are sorted now.

The Changes to damage in the update are relatively minor. Since the two ratings are called Hull and Structure we're renaming the Attribute H/S instead of Damage Capacity (DC). Literal in this case can be good.

Also I've nudged the damage values to a more stable point. 4/2 for Hunters instead of 5/1 and 3/3 for Jaguars rather than 4/2. Support Gears stay at 4/2 which is nominally worse than the Hunter since their defense skill is one point worse. Recon Gears are getting bumped to 3/3. Notice how all the Gears are a range of 6 Hull and Structure in total? That's intentional. It lets you see the difference a lot easier. There's a whole table giving the values now so that a Fragile Gear is 2/4, a regular Gear is 3/3, a tough gear 4/2 and a Rugged Gear is 5/1 (Black Adders and such, pretty rare).

Tanks add one point to Hull and another to structure so a fragile vehicle is a 3/5 model (VTOLs), a standard one is 4/4 (APCs), tough is 5/3 (Aller) and a rugged tank (Visigoth) is 6/2. They are also defined by their armor ratings so an AR:11 Strider with S/H:4/4 is fairly similar to an AR:10 Strider with S/H:5/3.

Standardizing the breakdown of the values is a fairly minor change but does make it easier to catagorize the models.

Oh yeah, and a Chibi X-mas gear.
https://www.facebook.com/DreamPod9/photos/a.258514970828057.73889.213919141954307/913707338642147/?type=1&theater

Cheers!
Dave

Good luck with the changes. Please don't forget to post the notification here as well when the dtrpg file is updated.

Why the fetish with creating acronyms (i.e. "DC", "H/S")?

What's wrong with "Hull 3+3"?

Does "Hull 3+3" not convey the notion clearly enough to the layperson?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Why the fetish with creating acronyms (i.e. "DC", "H/S")?

What's wrong with "Hull 3+3"?

Does "Hull 3+3" not convey the notion clearly enough to the layperson?

Because the Military loves acronyms 40k also uses a lot of acronyms themselves WS, BS, S, T, I, A, Ld, Sv. It''s the statline of the models and on a chart you want to use acronyms to save trees.

Update #68:

"The Pledge Manager has now been live for a week and we wanted to update everyone on the Kicksarter and its final total. We have 801 Backers now registered in the Pledge Manager and have sent out reminder invites to the 219 who still need to register. We need everyone to register so we can see the exact up to date totals of pledges, add-ons and shipping in the Pledge Manager.

At the close of the Kickstarter we had $150,406 CAD Pledged for Kickstarter to collect. During the following 2 weeks Kickstarter processed everyone's Pledges but was unable to collect about $3000 CAD from some 20 Backers. This could be due to problems processing the credit cards or other factors. We have added those Backers to the Pledge Manager with $0 Balances and their original Pledge Level. They just need to register and make their Pledge via our Stripe credit card processing on the Pledge Manager. If they or anyone else is not able to pay via credit card they are now able to make a direct PayPal payment to our account at (rdubois@dp9.com) for their pledge, add-ons, and shipping, just make sure to include a description of what the payment is for in the message with the payment. We also had a few US and Canadian Backers include the $15 Shipping in their Pledges, which the shipping did not count towards unlocking stretch goals, as it just goes to the post office and not towards the molds needed.

At present with the uncollected Backers and shipping removed we have $147,000 CAD Pledged towards the Kickstarter and unlocking the Stretch Goals. We plan to run an additional Crowd Funding Campaign using the Dream Pod 9 Website, Facebook Page, and Forum, plus other external websites to reach out to more players and potential Backers. The campaign would be to secure the stretch goal #18 for the Southern King Cobra which was already unlocked at $150K (adding 1 to the Core Starter) and to unlock #19 for the Northern Kodiak at $160K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), #20 for the Caprice Ammon Mount at $170K (adding 1 to the Core Starter), and #21 for the Extra Weapons and Parts Sprue at $185K (making it available for a $10 Add-on reward purchase). Unlocking all of these would require $38,000 in additional funding, which would be 330 new Backers each Pledging for a $115 CAD Core Starter Set. We have limited the extra stretch goal funding to the goals we feel are needed and that can still be delivered to Backers by our original November 2015 delivery date. We will start the additional campaign next week and it will run for the next month or two to unlock the desired stretch goals.

After that we'll still have the Pledge Manager open and allow additional Backers to join and existing Backers to change or add to their rewards for the several more months that we are working on the 3D Models for the plastic injection molds. Also, once the additional funding is secured and the stretch goals are unlocked, we will then allow backers to make Dream Pod 9 Online Store orders and have them added in with their Backer Reward Package when it ships later in 2015.

If you don't want to wait you can place a Dream Pod 9 Online Store order now (Click Here), US and Canadian orders have a basic $12.65 USD shipping and free shipping for orders over $100 USD. International orders have a flat $24.95 USD shipping on all orders.

If you have a friend or family member that wants to get a War for Terra Nova Core Starter Set for $115 CAD and have access to the Pledge Manager, just have them email me directly at rdubois@dp9.com with their full name and email address and request to join. We'll then get back to them with a PayPal money request and an invite to the Pledge Manager once the payment is received."

Hopefully the next small crowdfunding effort will get folks their much-desired Kodiaks and all those who missed out on the Kickstarter in the first go-round.

The new changes won't be until Christmas, but the Houston Group plans to meet up and have another go with the basics next week.

-Brandon F.

So now the King Cobra that was unlocked in the KS is now being relocked? A few percentage points of funds not going through is typical in KS and should have been incorporated into the plan for the kickstarter instead of relocking an unlocked stretch goal. There is also no mention of the pledge manager where the funding total ONLY can go up, not down. I'd be very surprised if they didn't make that $3,000 from folks increasing there pledge at that point but there is no mention of that.

While I can understand why things got "relocked" (failed funding dropped them below the goal), I don't think I've ever seen any other campaign do this...

 warboss wrote:
A few percentage points of funds not going through is typical in KS and should have been incorporated into the plan for the kickstarter instead of relocking an unlocked stretch goal. There is also no mention of the pledge manager where the funding total ONLY can go up, not down. I'd be very surprised if they didn't make that $3,000 from folks increasing there pledge at that point but there is no mention of that.

You'd best be prepared to be the recipient of serious tooth marks on your a$$ for pointing out such an obvious failing and/or oversight.

_
_

 Alpharius wrote:
While I can understand why things got "relocked" (failed funding dropped them below the goal), I don't think I've ever seen any other campaign do this...

IMO, DP9 ought to realize that Kickstarter creates a legally-enforcible contract with each individual backer, and that they should not change the terms after Kickstarter close. Given that reality, there are very strong legal contractual reasons not to do this.

What DP9 doesn't get is that one backer's failure to pay does NOT affect another backer's pledge. If DP9 made an offer that includes a King Cobra to Peter, and Peter accepts that offer by paying in good faith, then Paul's failure to complete their payment shouldn't harm Peter.

It is like paying someone for a car, and the dealer suddenly deciding that they aren't going to include all 4 wheels on your car, because some other guy decided not to buy a different car.

Technically, any and all backers who feel that they are being shorted by DP9 have the immediate right to pull their pledges via Credit Card Chargeback due to DP9 no longer holding up their end of the agreement. Backers who feel disgruntled have the option to report DP9 to Kickstarter for changing the offer.

The hassles associated with breaking the promise after campaign close are why most campaigns suck it up and deal with the shortage on the back end. Keep the noise down, and don't depend on post-campaign dollars to unlock more things.

What worries me about this is that it suggests higher risk:
1. That DP9 didn't do their homework on pledge collection rates,
2. That DP9 didn't build in proper margin for short payments, and/or
3. That DP9 didn't plan their campaign to absorb minor setbacks.

If this is an issue now, does DP9 need all of the stars to line up perfectly for the rest of the campaign to deliver?

If there is another budget issue or cost overrun, will DP9 decide they are going to cut other unlocks to fit their budget?

The whole thing is a red flag, and highlights just how much risk is involved in this campaign. It is not the sort of thing that suggests to a backer that they should be happy to throw more money into the pile.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


What worries me about this is that it suggests higher risk:
1. That DP9 didn't do their homework on pledge collection rates,
2. That DP9 didn't build in proper margin for short payments, and/or
3. That DP9 didn't plan their campaign to absorb minor setbacks.

If this is an issue now, does DP9 need all of the stars to line up perfectly for the rest of the campaign to deliver?

If there is another budget issue or cost overrun, will DP9 decide they are going to cut other unlocks to fit their budget?

The whole thing is a red flag, and highlights just how much risk is involved in this campaign. It is not the sort of thing that suggests to a backer that they should be happy to throw more money into the pile.

In case this is a complete surprise for anyone reading this thead, here is a post from earlier in the thread when the entire premise of the KS was changed after being advertised for weeks on their forum and going through 80% of the campaign only to change in the last few days.

 warboss wrote:

Dave, don't get me wrong. You have the right to change the retail version to whatever you want legally as long as you still meet the KS obligations. Just let's not pretend that it is "clear" or that this isn't a big change. For over a month in this current version of the KS plans (I won't go back to check on the previous two previews posted on the forums but it may go back even further), we've been consistently told that the stretch goals unlock extras in the retail version as well up to goal #13/$105k. Some folks pledged based on the premise that they were improving the retail version that would grow the community and future customers would get. That changed sometime over the last couple of days when things like the FAQ question and update started singing a different tune. Again, you have the right to change anything you want in the retail version as a company but not to pretend that it has been what you've been saying all along. You quoted someone who praises the company for being responsive but the above can also be construed as a lack of a clear vision and planning. For a company with a history of broken promises and short sighted decisions stretching back decades that is supposedly turning over a new leaf (again), this type of a change this late in the KS game is troubling. If this is in response to retailer feedback, why the heck wasn't that feedback elicited in the MONTHS preceding the KS? Or at least last month when the same issues were brought up by fans/customers/future and potential pledgers? Why did this only happen in the final week of the campaign? That isn't proactive but reactive bordering on procrastination. For a company that is asking for the money upfront a year ahead of time, that isn't a good thing. It begs the question of what other seemingly common sense things were missed.

That last sentence is the most telling. If DP9 expected that somehow 100% of the funds pledged would get into their coffers then they absolutely missed something incredibly basic about crowdfunding.

To answer your question, John, DP9 will do whatever is best for themselves in the short term even if it is at the expense of both their long term health and their customer base. If there another setback, the deal will change however they see fit to best benefit themselves in a vader-like "pray I don't alter the deal further" fashion. It's a 20 year tradition that this KS was supposed to be breaking. The smart thing would have been to just pad the next phase stretch goal by an extra $3,000 that they'll likely get in the pledge manager phase over the next months since they're talking about pledges unlocking further stretch goals, not to give a middle finger to those who already pledged and break each contract they had with backers who DID pay.

Looks more and more like this was just done to keep the lights on.

@warboss, wasn't the change to retail announced during the campaign? If I were backing to enhance retail product, and DP9 changed the plan, I could have changed (or withdrawn) my pledge accordingly.

This change is after DP9 took people's money. To me, it is a big deal to change the terms after accepting money.

In my case, I'm glad I only backed for 1 CAD, for PM access. At the rate things are going, I won't decide until the last minute.

JohnHwangDD wrote:This change is after DP9 took people's money. To me, it is a big deal to change the terms after accepting money.

Definitely.

Sorry DP9, but if you told the backers the stretch goal was unlocked and they pledged accordingly, you need to be an honest operation and keep your word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

DP9, you'll find life is better when you keep your word. Especially in business where it's all about agreements and reputation.

Huh. Well, this has devolved quickly. Luckily for me I got plenty smarted by the Robotech KS and ended up only going for $1CAD, so...

Honestly, I think this might just be a poor choice of phrasing. Notice that they never actually say that backers need to "re-unlock" the King Cobra...but instead they say that the need to "secure funding" for it. That runs opposite of the language for all the other stretch goals which specifically note that they need to be "unlocked".

Of course, I'm just arguing semantics...but I think DP9 is being less dastardly (at least in this case) then you all might think. I think they probably just wanted to point out they won't start towards unlocking new stretch goals until they make up that missing 3,000 bucks.

Might be wrong, that's just the vibe I got when I first read it. If this is, in fact, the case, well...unquestionably, they didn't do a great job of communicating it.

The problem with DP9 communicating poorly is their history. Unfortunately, the way the company has behaved in the past has created a culture of, at worst, dishonesty, and at best, scatterbrainedness. So when it happens again, and happens during the course of something meant to restart everything new and shiny.... Well, it's very difficult to accept that it's just worded badly.

Although, as that too has been one of DP9's hallmarks for over a decade (poor wording and consistent lack of editing), it would surprise no one if that were the case.