riker2800 wrote:Getting two targets inside the blast will not be that hard to pull off, but getting more than that will be fairly rare, unless you play against someone dumb.
Really. A 3'' radius template is a full inch bigger in diameter than the big Warhammer template, and by the rules you basically only need to touch ("any part of their base inside") a unit to hit it. In my experience, that's a lot of real estate, in game, and if you shoot intelligently you really can reach out and touch a lot of somethings. Or the enemy is so dispersed for fear of it that it really can't amass fire, which is also good.
A PEN 7 laser is quite potent, you still roll a base 4D6, you should be doing easily between 2 to 3 hits against trooper Gear, we don't want point defense turret to be death ray cannon!
We want it to kill things dead so as to stop being a menace, don't we? And we want to be able to use them effectively as gear killers in high cost sniper gears. Also, I'm not sure you can assume you'll be shooting in clear groud. What did you say about stupid opponents?
They shouldn't, since you won't calculate altitude, see section 17.0 how the general framework for the rules will work. Aircraft will simply cross the battle board at some point where you can shoot at them, so with range of 12-36, you will fire at them easily in the optimal range bracket.
Hm... that sounds really weird. Also, according to the alpha, section 17.0 refers to rotorcraft, and the one referring to aircrafts should be 19.0. There's also the fact that according to the rules the snap shot is done when the rotorcraft is crossing the center of the board, so you could be in optimal range... or too close. Or too far. It doesn't really say anything about what do you do if you're in cover and shoot outside (...what happens when you shoot outside cover with a laser, BTW? Do you do half PEN?).
warboss wrote:Just to be clear, average rolls between a 4+ GUN attacker with a beam and 4+ PIL defender results in 1 MOS without any further modifiers, not 2-3 which is a better guage than just naked hits.
riker2800 wrote:MoS 1 + PEN 7 - AR 6 = 2 hits which should be an easy average. However, tank can easily brace themselves without to much fear, adding another dice to the attack roll!
warboss wrote:Only if you assume there is no cover or other modifiers which tend to predominately favor the defender and more commonly don't require an action compared with attacker modifiers.
Yeah, you assume a lot. A whole lot.
riker2800 wrote:This is why you should use your tank gun then!
You get one shot with the tank guns. You'll note that a tank has 3 actions.
Also, laser will be mostly used when Gears are swarming you in the open, also, since it got the Fast Turret, its a weapon that can be used for reaction fire.
...assuming the enemy is an idiot, or the table does not have the suggested minimum 50% of it covered.
jedi76 wrote:All tanks should get a choice of firing AT or HE shells with the main gun really.
Yes. All rocket launchers should get the choice of getting AT rockets or IF rockets, too, but no such luck so far.
Also I'm not sure I like infantry on 40mm bases. I kind of feel they should be able to conform their bases to the terrain.
Using the three hex bases will let them fit better in a tight spot between terrain by lining them up. Every nook and cranny should be available to them.
I'm sure I don't. Too big, too unwieldy, I have waaay too many infantry units already based, and the 40mm bases don't fit in hexes, for when I want to play Tactical.
Not me, hopefully. I was just pointing out that stating a laser gets 2-3 "hits" in a vacuum without even considering the opposing test to reduce/negate it is not a good indicator of the weapon, especially when that step has more free no action modifiers for the defender and the next step (PEN vs AR) can swing quite badly for the laser depending on the range.
warboss wrote: Not me, hopefully. I was just pointing out that stating a laser gets 2-3 "hits" in a vacuum without even considering the opposing test to reduce/negate it is not a good indicator of the weapon, especially when that step has more free no action modifiers for the defender and the next step (PEN vs AR) can swing quite badly for the laser depending on the range.
Ah, sorry, I was taking about Riker ^_^. I was actually agreeing with you.
One thing I want to point out with the 3" radius, is that AFAIK, even in the new rules, you're not allowed to aim at terrain, and so the blast must be centered on a model. So if you're models are more than 3" apart (which they should be!), than getting multiple models in a single blast should be somewhere between uncommon and rare.
I mean, obviously terrain chokepoints, melee, or just plain forgetfulness, but much as in Blitz, once my opponent was aware of an AE threat, they would rarely let me hit more than one target unless I had very large AE (4"+) -- or I scattered, which is no longer in the game. And it was fairly trivial for him to avoid.
ferrous wrote: One thing I want to point out with the 3" radius, is that AFAIK, even in the new rules, you're not allowed to aim at terrain, and so the blast must be centered on a model. So if you're models are more than 3" apart (which they should be!), than getting multiple models in a single blast should be somewhere between uncommon and rare.
I mean, obviously terrain chokepoints, melee, or just plain forgetfulness, but much as in Blitz, once my opponent was aware of an AE threat, they would rarely let me hit more than one target unless I had very large AE (4"+) -- or I scattered, which is no longer in the game. And it was fairly trivial for him to avoid.
Bad_Syntax wrote:
"First of all let me say I'm not really active on the forum, and haven't played Heavy Gear much in a while. In a way, I may just be trolling here, and I apologize if that appears to be, but opinions were requested.
I have some of the old 1/87 scale miniatures. Maybe 10-20, I bought them when HG was getting started. I loved the game, and luckily didn't have too much of an investment when the scale got changed and players left the game en masse who did have a large investment. I liked the new miniatures, good molds, good quality, and unique designs that had flavor (unlike Battletech, where everybody gets everything, and designs are never standardized in any way).
So I got real into Heavy Gear. I inputted data on every unit, fought out landship battles, did campaigns, I *loved* the original Heavy Gear.
Then it went to Heavy Gear Blitz, and got dumbed down (or simplified if you prefer). I lost some opponents then, and wasn't real motivated to find them after that. I don't think I've bought miniatures since Blitz.
Then I see some new rules, and think AWESOME, NEW!. Then I download them, read them, and throw up in my mouth a little bit. The one thing I keep thinking is "why are they trying to make HG into 40K when we already have a 40K?". I know people want simpler games these days as attention spans have waned, but some of us can still read a book and don't mind games with depth. I see the simplicity with new games like Deadzone and Flames of War, and just can't see the appeal over going and playing COD on the XBOX, unless you just love painting I guess.
Right before Bltiz I started making a real time Heavy Gear game, top down view, that let everybody fight it out on a world. It wasn't officially sanctioned, but I had the talent to do the game (though I needed some help with art, and was willing to pay out of my own pocket for it). But since Blitz, the universe to me has just flat-lined in regards to depth, and my motivation moving forward was lost.
Back to my point. I have still kept up with the rulebooks, and bought everything new (and am still VERY disappointed to not have seen a book all about landships yet), but if this is the future of the rules, I'll be completely backing out of the game completely, and won't buy any more products. Hopefully I'm the only one, as I don't want to see ANY game system loose customers, and I wish DP9 the best, but this direction simply doesn't appeal to me in the slightest."
And Oubliette follows up:
"Well I have only really played one game of Blitz and will be having my first game of Alpha at the weekend. I really can't agree that the rules are "dumbed down", they still seem to have far more options and depth than most tabletop rules systems. They obviously aren't going to have the detail of a rule-set that was basically the combat rules for an (older style, rules heavy) RPG but then I wouldn't want to run a 15+ model a side scenario with most of those that I have ever known. Also I would rather have my complexity come in the form of additional options (EW) than in more detailed rules for things that aren't really required at squad level (hit locations, loads of stats for each weapon system). Horses for courses I guess.
Personally as a new player reading this and reviewing my thoughts on Blitz and L&L I am far more concerned that force composition, faction flavour and army building should be sorted out. I'd like to see all of the models stats and weapon loadouts reviewed so that they fit their original purpose using the new rules or it is made clear that the new rules changed them to the extent that a model needs to be retconned as to its role in a force.
The new army building looks okay if a little too flexible. I can't see why it won't result in the same issues as the pre FiF methods. If 4 gear units were too flexible before why isn't that the case any more? If spamming particular variants was an issue why has that gone away. I don't believe that it is possible to make all options equally good for the same TV, along with faction flavour it is the job of the army building rules to ensure that there is a good mix of units in a force which require a player to make the best use of a non-optimised force. YMMV.
Also whilst I understand the mechanics I can't see the rationale of the unit/support unit combo. Could someone give an example of a contemporary TOE that follows this pattern, that might help?"
Heh, the first guy's a bit nuts, but it does show how swapping away from the 1/87 models, to this day, still garners ire and negative feedback.
The guy seemed to really want his landships, which is a bit silly given that at the 1/87th scale (and even 1/144th), the things would be stupidly large, you'd need a small stadium to play the game. He should probably go play a game like Leviathans instead. (or continue playing fleet scale, I think the rulebook is still available)
Also a bit weird, as the rules are not very 40k like at all.
He's more than a bit nuts if he's the same guy using the same unique handle on the Robotech KS (which is likely given the similar mecha minis genre). He pulled his $1500 pledge on the kickstarter midway through after a stretch was reached because people didn't agree with his conversion house rules for the RPG. He then came back after he changed his profile name (but everyone could see his old comments still and caught him).
I could see a slight similarity to 40k rules in the previous damage incarnation (no pen vs ar but rather a firepower stat like 3+ for instance on bazookas similar more similar to FOW in my opinion).. but this version? I don't see it at all.
ferrous wrote:One thing I want to point out with the 3" radius, is that AFAIK, even in the new rules, you're not allowed to aim at terrain, and so the blast must be centered on a model. So if you're models are more than 3" apart (which they should be!), than getting multiple models in a single blast should be somewhere between uncommon and rare.
I mean, obviously terrain chokepoints, melee, or just plain forgetfulness, but much as in Blitz, once my opponent was aware of an AE threat, they would rarely let me hit more than one target unless I had very large AE (4"+) -- or I scattered, which is no longer in the game. And it was fairly trivial for him to avoid.
If your models are more than 3'' apart (or rather, if they're spread out specifically to counter Blasts instead of due to other reasons), taking into account the usual 4'x4' table sizes and the 50%+ of the board with terrain, they probably are not a threat (or will not be able to combine fire effectively, which amounts to the same). But well, horses for courses, maybe it's our playstyle.
Apparently now LLCs are PEN 6 and beam weapons only get their PEN reduced by 2 at suboptimal. Better, but I'm not really all that sure it is good enough.
Heh, I fail to see how being 3" apart somehow makes them suddenly weaker, we did just fine, on anything but super small tables (under 4'x4') But I agree, mostly pointless to bicker over.
Anyway, I do like that Dave seems to be listening to feedback and responding, and making some decent changes, that's more than we've ever gotten in the past. So I'm cautiously optimistic, there are still some rules that I think should be culled, like the weird offboard fire groups.
The Hun should be a LLC, the Visigoth should be a MLC.
Anyway, I do like that Dave seems to be listening to feedback and responding, and making some decent changes, that's more than we've ever gotten in the past.
See my post about that. It's likely you are agreeing with him, so the changes seem good. That's not the same as him listening.
Personally, I look at the absolute insistence he's showing that his methodology is perfect, and at how much he seems to object to the very idea of explaining what the various component are supposed to be doing in any meaningful details, and I'm rather the opposite of optimistic.
EDIT: The simple fact that people are looking at the army list is a very bad sign: The army list depend on the basic rules. It's pointless to test the lists when the rules can be changed. For that matter, the lists are going to be based on some fundamental assumptions about how the game work. Those assumptions are not being tested right now.
People are still bitching about making hunters and jagers different, or what size laser gun does what... instead of fundamentals like the fact that additional cover is broken. Or that the L/M/H system is horrible for stats clarity. Or that ECM is terribly bloated with 3 seperate tables to reference. :/
What did you expect ? The playtest is unguided, and the expected effect of each rule is unspecified. Testers are going to focus on whatever's important to them; they won't try to find what's not working, since they can't know what is not working.
Instead, they will lock and focus on what's not to their liking, which just tell us their biases* and pre-conceptions. Some cares a lot about the fluff and will focus on that. Other will focus on the rules that matter to them, and whether or not they are working for them, not on the fundamental rules and not on whether or not they are working correctly.
End results: lots of comment on various subjects, and the comments on any given subject have lots of hidden biases and assumptions.
The comments on the impact of cover, for example, depend more on the tables used by the testers and on how lethal they want to game to be than on the rules.
If the problem is that the rule are targeting a different level of lethality and terrain use than what a player expect, then their feedback must be interpreted with that in mind. The solution might be to change some other rule, not the one they are complaining about.
*for example, I care a lot about methodology, organization and procedures...
Killionaire wrote: People are still bitching about making hunters and jagers different, or what size laser gun does what... instead of fundamentals like the fact that additional cover is broken. Or that the L/M/H system is horrible for stats clarity. Or that ECM is terribly bloated with 3 seperate tables to reference. :/
About the "additional covers is broken" here something you need to keep in mind, the goal of the game is to make it more mobile, if additional cover were not added to the defender defense roll, while you'll ever want to move your Gear? Since you could stay where you are and shoot trough any cover, that will make for boring games.
I've been playing those Alpha rules since last August with two buddy of mine, and never we complained about to much cover, we move our Gears.
Also, with those new rules, reaction fire and CP giving out of activation has been toned down, making for easier aggressive movement.
ECM rules make sense and works easily, but yes they might look to complicated, since there is so many options...
The funny thing is that some people says the game has been dumbed down...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrondeau wrote: What did you expect ? The playtest is unguided, and the expected effect of each rule is unspecified. Testers are going to focus on whatever's important to them; they won't try to find what's not working, since they can't know what is not working.
Instead, they will lock and focus on what's not to their liking, which just tell us their biases* and pre-conceptions. Some cares a lot about the fluff and will focus on that. Other will focus on the rules that matter to them, and whether or not they are working for them, not on the fundamental rules and not on whether or not they are working correctly.
End results: lots of comment on various subjects, and the comments on any given subject have lots of hidden biases and assumptions.
The comments on the impact of cover, for example, depend more on the tables used by the testers and on how lethal they want to game to be than on the rules.
If the problem is that the rule are targeting a different level of lethality and terrain use than what a player expect, then their feedback must be interpreted with that in mind. The solution might be to change some other rule, not the one they are complaining about.
*for example, I care a lot about methodology, organization and procedures...
We are talking about a game, people should build army, get on a table, plays games and report, simple as that. Then, you see the pattern...
We are talking about a game, people should build army, get on a table, plays games and report, simple as that. Then, you see the pattern...
No, you don't. You don't see the pattern, because of the noise. I have been designing and testing complex systems for years. You don't test anything remotely complicated that way.
For that matter, DP9 has been "testing" that way for years. It never worked before, to the point where the game and the company is dying.
All the recurring problems, that somehow make it through the "tests" times after times ? That's why they are making it through the tests! The tests are not testing anything.
Killionaire wrote: People are still bitching about making hunters and jagers different, or what size laser gun does what... instead of fundamentals like the fact that additional cover is broken. Or that the L/M/H system is horrible for stats clarity. Or that ECM is terribly bloated with 3 seperate tables to reference. :/
Yeah the LMH system is currently stupid. Either use the existing LMH values for everything, or just discard them and have the Pen value right in the weapon code, like BZ7 or AC8. Which from what I can understand, is what he actually had during the closed playtest(and even had a few existing references in the public release), but then waffled back because of player complaints.
Though the problem with Pen codes for everything has it's own drawbacks, its still better than the hybrid they have now, where half the weapons don't use LMH anyway.
@Mrondeau, you're probably right, I do wish the testing was a bit more directed. "Lets test feature X this week, post your AARs here and give feedback"
We are talking about a game, people should build army, get on a table, plays games and report, simple as that. Then, you see the pattern...
No, you don't. You don't see the pattern, because of the noise. I have been designing and testing complex systems for years. You don't test anything remotely complicated that way.
For that matter, DP9 has been "testing" that way for years. It never worked before, to the point where the game and the company is dying.
All the recurring problems, that somehow make it through the "tests" times after times ? That's why they are making it through the tests! The tests are not testing anything.
Difference here - defined scope and repro isn't going to work when conducted by a diverse group. Essentially, you want to apply your own methods of testing to a group that, in all likelihood, is not versed in the concepts of structured testing.
While this style of noisy testing may not be to your liking, it does have a point. There is still viable data to be mined from it, if you assume the submissions are inherently biased. Getting people talking about a subject alone can yield results.
If everyone was capable of following a concise scope and action plan, I probably wouldn't have a job.
We are talking about a game, people should build army, get on a table, plays games and report, simple as that. Then, you see the pattern...
No, you don't. You don't see the pattern, because of the noise. I have been designing and testing complex systems for years. You don't test anything remotely complicated that way.
For that matter, DP9 has been "testing" that way for years. It never worked before, to the point where the game and the company is dying.
All the recurring problems, that somehow make it through the "tests" times after times ? That's why they are making it through the tests! The tests are not testing anything.
Difference here - defined scope and repro isn't going to work when conducted by a diverse group. Essentially, you want to apply your own methods of testing to a group that, in all likelihood, is not versed in the concepts of structured testing.
While this style of noisy testing may not be to your liking, it does have a point. There is still viable data to be mined from it, if you assume the submissions are inherently biased. Getting people talking about a subject alone can yield results.
If everyone was capable of following a concise scope and action plan, I probably wouldn't have a job.
Here's the thing: it's not working. That test procedure, that whole way of doing things is just not working for them, and never worked. They are in a hole, and instead of trying something new, they just keep digging. That's simply insane.
I'm not complaining about the procedure because I don't like it. I'm complaining about it because it does not work.
I cannot agree with mrondeau more. Opening testing occurs usually when all the rules are done. It is the last test to see whether there is any unforeseen error. Reaper Warlord, for example, takes 5 years to streamline and relatively balance all thhe fractions in their 2nd edition. HGB has a much more complicated system than that. It will take more than a miracle to achieve that in such time frame. And very unfortunately, all the players who tried the alpha rules give a bias opinion.
I'm going to jump in on a few of these issues, since they are my decisions directly and I can provide context for a few of these changes.
Albertorius wrote:
So, tank should move forward and fire at target in sight. For real indirect support, use Ostrogoth, Water Dragon, Spitting Cobra (Arty, Support, base one).
That's your position, and as such is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Having weapons that behaved differently made for very different playstyles, which helped to see the factions as, well, different. That is dead and killed now.
As for the others... the Ostrogoth is a long-range, batallion level support unit, the Water Dragon is a water terrain support unti for gear regiments, and the Spits are regular close-range support for Gear regiments. The Visigoths had their own close-range support up until now, which made them play differently.
I was the one who decided that field guns should not have IF. There's a couple of reasons for it, and while I identified this as a major change in the impacted models I felt the benefits outweighed the 'damage' to the Visigoth's (and Voltgier's) capabilities in the Blitz era. This may simply boil down to a decision you simply don't agree with, unfortunately. But here's the rationales.
First, the scale / range argument. It's true that in both Blitz & Tactical, field guns could perform indirect fire. And in reality, a tank such as the Abrams can perform indirect fire. IIRC HGB/HGT, there was no limit on the range of the indirect fire - you could fire indirectly immediately beside your model, if you wanted. However, in reality most tanks have a shallow elevation - the Abrams is +20 / -10 which is a typical range. This means that 'indirect' fire is practically limited to long range engagements, against targets behind relatively low cover or targets far away from said cover. The drop shadows for such attacks would be huge. From an 'immersion' angle, the Visi and Volti models don't appear to allow very high elevations for their cannons - and so should suffer under the same restrictions. The question becomes - should be add specific rules to account for this (drop shadows, only fire at extreme range, etc)?
The second issue with the Visi / Volti having IF is that it creates a cognitive dissonance for the player, which hinders their ability to map their expectations onto the model. A model's design should reflect it's purpose on the table, IMO. Take two players without any knowledge of the background, hand them an Aller and a Stormhammer and ask them what they think those models should do. I'll put good money down that the player will say that the Aller is a tank designed to smash things, while the Stormhammer is an artillery piece designed to sit back and shell things. And because the Aller is 'bigger' than the Hunter, it should 'tougher', right? Because bigger means tougher, as a common expectation. One major goal for the changes in Mecha Attack - which became HGBv5 of whatever they are calling it - was to make sure that dissonant elements were minimized as much as possible. A Mammoth should absolutely be tough as nails, because it looks like it is. Same for a tank, you should be able to roll up and smash things down. A model's form should closely align to its structure unless it simply can't be fixed any other way.
I took the two considerations above and split the weapons into field guns and artillery guns. Field guns are direct fire cannon that you typically see on tanks, whereas artillery cannons have a pronounced elevation and fire indirectly. The split made is to such that a player can look at the model's statline and know what it's role is definitely, without needing to remember the minutia of each weapon. The weapon name reinforces that - artillery cannon is very easily parsed as 'indirect' because people think of artillery in that fashion. Weapons do not change how they work from model to model - only the PEN value changes - so players can easily start building up a map of what each weapon is good for and go from there.
Originally the Visi and Voli were supposed to be roughly equivalent to the Aller, since their form and price were all equivalent. Since the Aller's rail gun was deemed to be the 'better anti-heavy armor weapon' and they needed something extra for their cannon, so they got HE and AT rounds they could choose from, making them a bit more multi-role than the Aller. While Blast:3 isn't much, it's enough to give them a good anti-Gear punch in certain situations where the Aller can be more easily overwhelmed. Additional tweaks such as indirect rockets for the Visi we never got around to, but it's certainly something that could have broadened the model's role and given it more punch. As for the laser, it should probably be a MLC, but I don't know how Dave is mapping the weapons, honestly. There was an initial, rough mapping SLCs to LLCs, LLCs to MLCs, HLC to HLC. But I dropped that very early on, and I'm surprised to see the letters back.
At any rate, that's the reasoning behind why the Visi and Voli lost IF from their main guns.
EDIT: This was a response to BrandonKF's post. Also, except for overfitting and confirmation bias, I'm using the terminology in a metaphorical way below.
Sampling Bias: The testers test what matters to them, and some subsystems will be under-tested or even untested, while other will be over-tested.
Biased estimator: There's no way for a tester to know if something is working as intended or not, so they will use their own judgement and common sense. Their own judgement is their own, and common sense is not actually common. The same subsystem will be reported as too weak, too strong, and ok, whether or not it's working as intended.
Confounded variables: There are a lot of interactions between subsystems. A problem can easily mask another. A working subsystem can easily appear not to work because of a problem in another subsystem.
Overfitting: Some testers have been testing for a while. The game is already fitted to them. It works very well for them. Any continuing feedback from them does not add any new information, and is essentially useless.
All of that means that the feedback is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. This brings us to the only bias that really matters in this case.
Confirmation Bias: When interpreting the feedback, the designers will tend to interpret it to fit their preconceptions and opinions. Sufficiently ambiguous feedback can be interpreted however they want. With unambiguous feedback, the impact of confirmation bias is reduced. Ideally, with reliably quantifiable feedback and proper statistics, it can be removed almost completely. However, while that ideal case is not always possible, all other measures to reduce the feedback's ambiguity should be taken.
A testing procedure works if the feedback can go against against the designer's opinions. "I think that this is perfect, and work very well, but the tests all came negative. It needs to go."
EDIT: Do not post before 10:00 AM or the fourth coffee, whichever come last.
Albertorius wrote:Another thing that I've realized when cross checking this:
If one of every two weapons in the current lists have different damage, range or special qualities than the ones in the weapons tables... why in sweet hell are you guys still using weapons tables? Those don't help, only confuse.
The original intent was that this was absolutely not the case. Weapons were completely the same from model to model with only the exception of PEN values (or whatever the flavor du jour of damage was). So you knew that an autocannon was an autocannon was an autocannon, only the 'relevant targets' changed. To be fair, there were choices that had to be made about whether a weapon should be made into a new type, given a prefix or simply absorbed into an existing type of weapon. The autocannons are a great example of these - should a VHAC be simply a high power autocannon (PEN 7 for a HAC vs. PEN 8 for a VHAC), or a high rate of fire with lower damage (a HAC's PEN 7 but burst 2 instead of burst 1)? Do you make a new weapon type (GAC) or a prefix or trait (Gatling)? How does that fit with AA autocannons? So there's some give in take on this point, and maybe his approach is simple to mix traits onto weapons that need it.
I'd be surprised if range was changed from weapon to weapon though. That should generally accepted as something that shouldn't change at all. But then, I feel that the range attribute still needed work (with more time I would probably have dropped extreme and reworked suboptimal slightly). But c'est la vie.
ferrous wrote:And finally, I totally agree with the charts, they need either stick to the L/M/H from the table, or just drop the L/M/H entirely and just append the Pen number to the weapon. In posts by Dave, it sounds like they used to do the latter and the LMH stuff is there to try to appease dissenters.
I don't know about why the L/M/H stuff was brought back, but yes - it used to only be PEN based. The major frustration with that approach was unit updates. Changing every case of a AC:6 to AC:7 could be a real PITA, whereas changing LAC from 6 to 7 is fairly easy. The choice to use prefixes might be to help playtesters while the system is getting shaken out, honestly.
Yes. All rocket launchers should get the choice of getting AT rockets or IF rockets, too, but no such luck so far.
The reason for some models getting AT versus IF rockets was to 1) keep the weapon's purpose clearly identifiable and 2) simplify the various rockets types in HGB to one or two 'types', if possible. Whereas most HGB/HGT weapons had minor variations in their range or attributes, rockets were all over the board on range, rate of fire and purpose. You have everything from VLRPs with short range but high rates of fire to HRPs with very long ranges and high rates of fire, with many mixtures between them. If we want to simplify the rocket types, one type simply won't cut it - the range for a VLRP or LRP is simply too limited to represent a MRP or HRP well. So there were three types created - AI rockets, AT rockets and Arty rockets, mapping roughly to VLRPs, LRP/MRPs and HRPs. AI and Arty rockets were indirect, whereas AT were direct.
The latter distinction was completely arbitrary, but we ran with it because it helped define units a bit more strongly. Most of the Gears have TMWS - we couldn't remove weapons, so instead of tweaked the rockets to give the models specific niches. A Grizzly uses its HGM for indirect, while the MRPs are for cracking armor in close and the HAC is used for general anti-vehicle work. The Spitting Cobra now has AT rockets and Arty rockets, each with a different role, and more closely matches the Grizzly's profile as well. The Chevalier variants with LFGs becomes the indirect support option (artillery guns), the variants with 3x MRPs become more nuanced as close range assault, etc.
Additionally, if you allow rockets to work in either mode, you have a harder time making them work across every chassis in both modes, without them being the 'go-to' weapon. In HGT and the fluff, their general strength was limited by their very limited ammo. However, here was never a clean way that we found to use ammo with large model counts in game (25-30 per side) and since MA was designed to fit that scale we had to work without limited ammo constraints. For a skirmish based game you could (and probably should) make different design decisions but that's any additional reason why rockets are implemented they way they were.
Also I'm not sure I like infantry on 40mm bases. I kind of feel they should be able to conform their bases to the terrain.
Using the three hex bases will let them fit better in a tight spot between terrain by lining them up. Every nook and cranny should be available to them.
I'm sure I don't. Too big, too unwieldy, I have waaay too many infantry units already based, and the 40mm bases don't fit in hexes, for when I want to play Tactical.
Infantry on 40mm bases allows an entire platoon to work as a single entity, and you don't have to worry about activation spam. That was an issue in previous editions - large numbers of infantry could swamp your opponent's activations - and this also meant that you didn't need the various combined model rules in play. Infantry were essentially another 'Gear' and took damage a bit differently, and had some special rules for how they dealt with terrain. However, infantry were designed after Gears (the primary stars of MA) and vehicles, and didn't get the attention initially that they probably needed. I suspect Dave would be amenable to any points you have about Infantry.
Here's the thing: it's not working. That test procedure, that whole way of doing things is just not working for them, and never worked. They are in a hole, and instead of trying something new, they just keep digging. That's simply insane.
I'm not complaining about the procedure because I don't like it. I'm complaining about it because it does not work.
Without having sufficient data to go on, I can only conclude your view on it is just that - your view (and I'm not saying that to be a dick or anything - I seriously don't have much info on DP9's colorful history). But, if you are correct and they continue to follow a course that does not yield results then there wouldn't be a point in complaining about it. It's not something you can change, despite your efforts. As such, continuing to expend energy complaining or theorycrafting an inherently broken design approach isn't very constructive - it's just going to make you mad
Your time is better spent collaborating with another core group of people with similar adhesion to testing procedure and SME's in the arena of tabletop mechanics. There seem to be a lot of them here. From there, brew your own house rules and generate a sub-genera of using their mini's with your own system. Give HG's relative obscurity in the US and lack of draconian requirements at play locations (cough GW cough) it would be pretty easy to introduce these rules to other folks. Who knows... If they work well, maybe DP9 will (finally?) get the hint and go that route.
From my perspective, I see new rules that - for the most part - aren't horrible. Yeah, there are stupid posts (mine included) on fluff or whatnot that shouldn't really be relative at this phase of the testing... but it's an open test. Open alpha/betas are *always* a chaotic torrent of relevant and irrelevant data. There's already been an update to the rules as a milestone only a month or so after they dropped right? I take that as forward progress, even if it's in a direction that you or others may not agree with.
Anyway - good hunting!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note...
I proxied HG miniatures with infinity's rule system. I think the Infinity folks were really onto something with the orders pool and the ARO. Too bad I can't find *anyone* around here who plays :(
Just to be clear, average rolls between a 4+ GUN attacker with a beam and 4+ PIL defender results in 1 MOS without any further modifiers, not 2-3 which is a better guage than just naked hits.
Hurm... not sure exactly where you're getting that. Specifically, the distribution that I setup was:
Which means that 1) on average, you're hitting (MoS0) far more often (> 81% of the time versus > 59%) and you have a higher distribution of the larger yields (+2, +3, +4). You should not be assuming that a laser (4D6) over a basic weapon (2D6) is only adding +1 MoS - you should probably consider it as +2 or +3.
That said, I wasn't satisfied with the way that lasers were implemented and I'm happy to see Dave refining them. The +2D6 was added to try to reflect their 'always hits' and 'highly precise' nature over autocannons but I always felt it broke down the mechanics too much. Some other mechanic would probably have been better, but determining exactly the way lasers should work never really worked out, IMO. C'est la vie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ncshooter426 wrote: I proxied HG miniatures with infinity's rule system. I think the Infinity folks were really onto something with the orders pool and the ARO. Too bad I can't find *anyone* around here who plays :(
I agree about the AROs, but disagree about order pool. But yeah, the next system I come up with most certainly uses ARO, it's a great mechanic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killionaire wrote: instead of fundamentals like the fact that additional cover is broken.
Cover was never quite right from my perspective. I never managed to get it *right*, because it's hard to nail down the various perceptions of cover in HG's setting. Typically, cover works to make success less likely by increasing the target number that you need, with soft cover (bushes) adding less than hard cover (rocks). If you can't see your target, you can't shoot them - so a thin wall protects you as well as a steel bunker. Infinity modifies that slightly with the addition of bunkers, but ignores the material type. This construct works in almost all cases, and nobody really complains (much) about it.
HG has a slightly different heritage; you can shoot through materials, sometimes at a fairly minor penalty. The penalty was rooted more in detection (like Infinity) but also mixed in material density as well. This matches somewhat to reality, where you can penetrate some cover with specific types of weapons, but makes it a bit complicated to map in practice because now you have different expectations in play. How much cover ensures that you're completely protected? How many material types do you map? This also leads into the question of how you want the game to play - do you want turtling to be a viable strategy, or is there always a risk of damage when you're in cover? There's not necessarily a right answer here, just a perception - and what we ended up going with was trying to make cover fairly strong without making you completely safe while within it. At that point, you got +1D for light, +2D for heavy and +1D if there were more than one instance. But I could be remembering incorrectly and it was +1D per each additional, it's been a while.
Effectively, this strategy helps models with decent augments take good advantage of cover, without making them completely safe within it. A Jaguar with light cover was only rolling 3D at a 3+ roll, and you can still botch a 3D roll. A Hunter with heavy and light cover was getting 5D at 4+, but still needed most of those to be 4+ in order to make their DEF roll 'untouchable'. However, it has the flaw that big models can't defend effectively behind heavy cover (+2D) because of their 6+ augment. This is the critical failure of this approach - models gain more benefit from cover the better the augment, so low augment models don't benefit. In practice however, everything should want cover, from a tank to an infantry man. And there's little way to achieve that in this system without using something like a flat value for cover that is used if you roll too low, or modifiers to the defense roll, or similar.
The additional +1D per instance may be an attempt to weaken that 'not completely safe in cover' ideal of the above system, and try to make things more 'reliable'. I'm not sure though; adding the +1D to elite models changed their interaction with cover significantly. I'm sure Dave has an approach he's shooting for at this point, but I'm not aware of it. I would have liked to have spent more time to refine cover, and try to tie the various ideals about cover together - but oh well, didn't happen.
Just to be clear, average rolls between a 4+ GUN attacker with a beam and 4+ PIL defender results in 1 MOS without any further modifiers, not 2-3 which is a better guage than just naked hits.
Hurm... not sure exactly where you're getting that.
Simple arithmetic just like the analysis of the post I was responding to. It wasn't meant to list each and every possible outcome %. A 4+ gun @ 4d6 = 2 success. Defending 4+ pil @ 2d6 = 1 success resulting in final MOS1. Obviously the above treats all successes as the simplified same (not true) but it the point was to show that just counting gun "hits" without ever considering defense rolls let alone the pen/arm interaction is NOT a good way to evaluate the effectiveness overall of a weapon. Thanks for the more detailed analysis in any case. I would note though that the Mos1 is the most likely individual success in your analysis as well.
Effectively, this strategy helps models with decent augments take good advantage of cover, without making them completely safe within it. A Jaguar with light cover was only rolling 3D at a 3+ roll, and you can still botch a 3D roll. A Hunter with heavy and light cover was getting 5D at 4+, but still needed most of those to be 4+ in order to make their DEF roll 'untouchable'. However, it has the flaw that big models can't defend effectively behind heavy cover (+2D) because of their 6+ augment. This is the critical failure of this approach - models gain more benefit from cover the better the augment, so low augment models don't benefit. In practice however, everything should want cover, from a tank to an infantry man. And there's little way to achieve that in this system without using something like a flat value for cover that is used if you roll too low, or modifiers to the defense roll, or similar.
Since you've got excel handy, what effect would cover changing the augment instead of dice have? I.e. a mammoth in partial cover gets a 5+ instead of an extra d6. Super maneuverable units would then not benefit from tons of cover as much as the augment caps at 2+ but they're already quite hard to hit at that point.
Since you've got excel handy, what effect would cover changing the augment instead of dice have? I.e. a mammoth in partial cover gets a 5+ instead of an extra d6. Super maneuverable units would then not benefit from tons of cover as much as the augment caps at 2+ but they're already quite hard to hit at that point.
It doesn't help on its own - you need to both decrease the augment as well as add dice. Without the additional dice, you don't get the reliability of cover that you need (which is the point of cover in the first place). We never tried doing both (decreasing augment as well as adding dice) because there was a severe kick-back against modifying augments; people hated them in the first place and putting in place a system where you 'improved them' by going 'lower' got negative responses. It's certainly an option, but still a bit clunky - checkout the differences here:
It's a good step, but you really need to do something like 'soft cover grants aug 4+' while 'hard grants aug 3+' or something like that, where you can always use your augment if better. But again, that depends on how 'strong' you want cover to be.
It's a good step, but you really need to do something like 'soft cover grants aug 4+' while 'hard grants aug 3+' or something like that, where you can always use your augment if better. But again, that depends on how 'strong' you want cover to be.
I'd definitely not be a fan of a firm augment based on the cover as it wouldn't ever benefit agile units. I want them to occasionally benefit from cover within reason but not become unhittable. With just a 3+ for cover, anything "better" than a hunter just won't benefit with those schemes. At least with a benefit to augment, they'd get some but with a hard limit. I'd personally be fine with the THACO style cognitive dissonance of something "lower" being "better". In the end, it's no different from the system in the alpha anyways and the most popular scifi game uses something similar (saves).
warboss wrote: I'd definitely not be a fan of a firm augment based on the cover as it wouldn't ever benefit agile units. I want them to occasionally benefit from cover within reason but not become unhittable. With just a 3+ for cover, anything "better" than a hunter just won't benefit with those schemes. At least with a benefit to augment, they'd get some but with a hard limit. I'd personally be fine with the THACO style cognitive dissonance of something "lower" being "better". In the end, it's no different from the system in the alpha anyways and the most popular scifi game uses something similar (saves).
Yup, that was the problem with a flat modifier to augment (that some models don't benefit from it). That's why I preferred a flat 'final score' that cover provided, like saying that hard cover always counted you as having rolled a 6 (if your roll was less than 6). However, it was felt that was too complicated to keep up with. Yet another of the things we tried that eventually got dust-binned.
warboss wrote: I'd definitely not be a fan of a firm augment based on the cover as it wouldn't ever benefit agile units. I want them to occasionally benefit from cover within reason but not become unhittable. With just a 3+ for cover, anything "better" than a hunter just won't benefit with those schemes. At least with a benefit to augment, they'd get some but with a hard limit. I'd personally be fine with the THACO style cognitive dissonance of something "lower" being "better". In the end, it's no different from the system in the alpha anyways and the most popular scifi game uses something similar (saves).
Yup, that was the problem with a flat modifier to augment (that some models don't benefit from it). That's why I preferred a flat 'final score' that cover provided, like saying that hard cover always counted you as having rolled a 6 (if your roll was less than 6). However, it was felt that was too complicated to keep up with. Yet another of the things we tried that eventually got dust-binned.
Hrm... hadn't thought about that.. similar to the current blitz hull down defense values. I'd have to see that in action to form an opinion but I'm not a fan of the current alpha idea of multiple instance cover grating unlimited bonuses. Shooting through 2 trees 3 inches apart on an area terrain piece should be the same ideally be the same as shooting through those same exact two trees in the same position but unfortunately as written the "instance" terrain version is twice as good. If anything, I'd err on the side of "deadly" rather than "safe" in the new edition of blitz with the added model count and the long history of whiffed shots in current blitz turning players off.
Personally, I would simply remove the multiple instance component. Cover is based on Line-of-sight. That's what matters. The percentage of the target covered would be important, not the amount of stuff in the way. It's simpler, and it forces players to move models around the terrain just as much.
Of course, the central question here is not what should cover do. It's what's the (approximate) percentage of models that should be in movement at any given point, and how careful should the players be when plotting their movements.
Some will be moving to get in better cover against some incoming models, some will be moving to get a good firing position, and some will be bracing to use the cover they already have and shoot. The exact impact of cover depends on that and on the desired lethality of the game.
On the other hand, having non-terminal cover stack makes a board containing only partial cover viable to play on, and adds more complexity to shooting. Instead of shooting being reduced to either having a perfect (or almost perfect) shot vs. not being able to shoot at all.
Because that's what shooting beyond detection range would boil down to:
- Clear shot
- Shot vs. +1D6 cover
- You can't shoot at all
without the additional cover modifiers. You'd get into "OMG, if you don't cover the table with full cover terrain, everyone will die instantly!" Infinity terrain situation and making every element of cover three inches tall.
IceRaptor wrote: I'm going to jump in on a few of these issues, since they are my decisions directly and I can provide context for a few of these changes.
I was the one who decided that field guns should not have IF. There's a couple of reasons for it, and while I identified this as a major change in the impacted models I felt the benefits outweighed the 'damage' to the Visigoth's (and Voltgier's) capabilities in the Blitz era. This may simply boil down to a decision you simply don't agree with, unfortunately. But here's the rationales.
I do understand there are reasons, but 1) I don't know if I agree with them and 2) the units that have gotten field guns vs. the ones that have received tank guns doesn't always make sense.
First, the scale / range argument. It's true that in both Blitz & Tactical, field guns could perform indirect fire. And in reality, a tank such as the Abrams can perform indirect fire. IIRC HGB/HGT, there was no limit on the range of the indirect fire - you could fire indirectly immediately beside your model, if you wanted. However, in reality most tanks have a shallow elevation - the Abrams is +20 / -10 which is a typical range. This means that 'indirect' fire is practically limited to long range engagements, against targets behind relatively low cover or targets far away from said cover. The drop shadows for such attacks would be huge. From an 'immersion' angle, the Visi and Volti models don't appear to allow very high elevations for their cannons - and so should suffer under the same restrictions. The question becomes - should be add specific rules to account for this (drop shadows, only fire at extreme range, etc)?
The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.
The second issue with the Visi / Volti having IF is that it creates a cognitive dissonance for the player, which hinders their ability to map their expectations onto the model. A model's design should reflect it's purpose on the table, IMO. Take two players without any knowledge of the background, hand them an Aller and a Stormhammer and ask them what they think those models should do. I'll put good money down that the player will say that the Aller is a tank designed to smash things, while the Stormhammer is an artillery piece designed to sit back and shell things. And because the Aller is 'bigger' than the Hunter, it should 'tougher', right? Because bigger means tougher, as a common expectation. One major goal for the changes in Mecha Attack - which became HGBv5 of whatever they are calling it - was to make sure that dissonant elements were minimized as much as possible. A Mammoth should absolutely be tough as nails, because it looks like it is. Same for a tank, you should be able to roll up and smash things down. A model's form should closely align to its structure unless it simply can't be fixed any other way.
I'm of two minds about this. I understand that some people will see the tank and will think "tank", so they will be surprised. That said, I'm a fluff nut, and I'd still like for the models to follow it somewhat. And then there's the fact that I believe that having the two polar MBTs perform so differently made for a very interesting variation in playstyles.
I took the two considerations above and split the weapons into field guns and artillery guns. Field guns are direct fire cannon that you typically see on tanks, whereas artillery cannons have a pronounced elevation and fire indirectly. The split made is to such that a player can look at the model's statline and know what it's role is definitely, without needing to remember the minutia of each weapon. The weapon name reinforces that - artillery cannon is very easily parsed as 'indirect' because people think of artillery in that fashion. Weapons do not change how they work from model to model - only the PEN value changes - so players can easily start building up a map of what each weapon is good for and go from there.
Yes, I see that, and I even agree to an extent. Just not all the way through, in the case of the Visigoth.
Originally the Visi and Voli were supposed to be roughly equivalent to the Aller, since their form and price were all equivalent. Since the Aller's rail gun was deemed to be the 'better anti-heavy armor weapon' and they needed something extra for their cannon, so they got HE and AT rounds they could choose from, making them a bit more multi-role than the Aller. While Blast:3 isn't much, it's enough to give them a good anti-Gear punch in certain situations where the Aller can be more easily overwhelmed. Additional tweaks such as indirect rockets for the Visi we never got around to, but it's certainly something that could have broadened the model's role and given it more punch. As for the laser, it should probably be a MLC, but I don't know how Dave is mapping the weapons, honestly. There was an initial, rough mapping SLCs to LLCs, LLCs to MLCs, HLC to HLC. But I dropped that very early on, and I'm surprised to see the letters back.
I am too, seeing as many weapons don't have much to do with the tables. As for the Visigoth, I'll admit that what gets me is that it has lost all its IF capabilities, in my mind, for no good reason. I see your motivations for the split of field guns and artillery guns, but I don't know if I agree (see my problem with IF, above) and I believe that in the Visigoth's case, it should have kept the IF rockets, to still be able to act as a very short range support unit in a pinch (which, IMHO, reinforces the multirole philosofies of the southern gear).
Albertorius wrote:Another thing that I've realized when cross checking this:
If one of every two weapons in the current lists have different damage, range or special qualities than the ones in the weapons tables... why in sweet hell are you guys still using weapons tables? Those don't help, only confuse.
The original intent was that this was absolutely not the case.
I'm not surprised about that ^_^.
Weapons were completely the same from model to model with only the exception of PEN values (or whatever the flavor du jour of damage was). So you knew that an autocannon was an autocannon was an autocannon, only the 'relevant targets' changed. To be fair, there were choices that had to be made about whether a weapon should be made into a new type, given a prefix or simply absorbed into an existing type of weapon. The autocannons are a great example of these - should a VHAC be simply a high power autocannon (PEN 7 for a HAC vs. PEN 8 for a VHAC), or a high rate of fire with lower damage (a HAC's PEN 7 but burst 2 instead of burst 1)? Do you make a new weapon type (GAC) or a prefix or trait (Gatling)? How does that fit with AA autocannons? So there's some give in take on this point, and maybe his approach is simple to mix traits onto weapons that need it.
I'd be surprised if range was changed from weapon to weapon though. That should generally accepted as something that shouldn't change at all. But then, I feel that the range attribute still needed work (with more time I would probably have dropped extreme and reworked suboptimal slightly). But c'est la vie.
I actually think that range is the thing that does not change (even though I could see it changing quite easily between "weight" classes of the same weapon ^_^).
I don't know about why the L/M/H stuff was brought back, but yes - it used to only be PEN based. The major frustration with that approach was unit updates. Changing every case of a AC:6 to AC:7 could be a real PITA, whereas changing LAC from 6 to 7 is fairly easy. The choice to use prefixes might be to help playtesters while the system is getting shaken out, honestly.
It is easy... but the way it has actually been implemented adds to the confusion, IMO. If a LAC is 6 damage in the weapons tables, but of all the LACs in the actual units, a third do 5 damage, another third do 6 and the last third do 7... is a PITA. You neve know what the hell actually does the weapon is shooting at you unless you ask, and unless you do, you don't really know if that specific weapon is good against your units or not. At least AC:6 or AC:7 are self explanatory.
Yes. All rocket launchers should get the choice of getting AT rockets or IF rockets, too, but no such luck so far.
The reason for some models getting AT versus IF rockets was to 1) keep the weapon's purpose clearly identifiable and 2) simplify the various rockets types in HGB to one or two 'types', if possible. Whereas most HGB/HGT weapons had minor variations in their range or attributes, rockets were all over the board on range, rate of fire and purpose. You have everything from VLRPs with short range but high rates of fire to HRPs with very long ranges and high rates of fire, with many mixtures between them. If we want to simplify the rocket types, one type simply won't cut it - the range for a VLRP or LRP is simply too limited to represent a MRP or HRP well. So there were three types created - AI rockets, AT rockets and Arty rockets, mapping roughly to VLRPs, LRP/MRPs and HRPs. AI and Arty rockets were indirect, whereas AT were direct.
I think I have not made me very clear. What I mean is that a rocket pack should be a rocket pack should be a rocket pack (by which I mean, one line in the weapon tables), and that it should differ in the loadout (by which I mean, they should be able to be loaded with different ammo types, seeing as there are ammo type rules in the game). Just not at the same time.
My thinking was that the option between direct fire or IF rockets should be kept in the army list. Maye some units wouldn't actually have the two options (for example, let's say that Spitting Cobras couldn't pick direct fire rockets for their HRPs, or that Grizzlies only could get direct fire ones for their MRPs, or that Caimans only could get IF rockets... whatever), whereas others would have to actually select them during army creation (maybe Hunters can choose between the two types, for example).
The latter distinction was completely arbitrary, but we ran with it because it helped define units a bit more strongly. Most of the Gears have TMWS - we couldn't remove weapons, so instead of tweaked the rockets to give the models specific niches. A Grizzly uses its HGM for indirect, while the MRPs are for cracking armor in close and the HAC is used for general anti-vehicle work. The Spitting Cobra now has AT rockets and Arty rockets, each with a different role, and more closely matches the Grizzly's profile as well. The Chevalier variants with LFGs becomes the indirect support option (artillery guns), the variants with 3x MRPs become more nuanced as close range assault, etc.
But as I said, you can do that limiting the ammo types those units can select during army creation. I don't feel there's an actual need to have two weapon types. You could even add incendiary rockets into the mix, too.
And yes, the TMWS is a problem, I agree with that. But some units don't have it and still have gotten split .
Additionally, if you allow rockets to work in either mode, you have a harder time making them work across every chassis in both modes, without them being the 'go-to' weapon. In HGT and the fluff, their general strength was limited by their very limited ammo. However, here was never a clean way that we found to use ammo with large model counts in game (25-30 per side) and since MA was designed to fit that scale we had to work without limited ammo constraints. For a skirmish based game you could (and probably should) make different design decisions but that's any additional reason why rockets are implemented they way they were.
I don't feel rockets should be able to work in either mode. I actually think it is very senisble to separate IF rockets from DF rockets... I just think that the launcher doesn't really need to differ for that. A RP should only be able to shoot one kind of rocket at the same time, in my mind, but having the launcher be the same with different ammo add possibilities to the lists and for army variations, I believe (you could mix it up with army doctrines, for example).
Also I'm not sure I like infantry on 40mm bases. I kind of feel they should be able to conform their bases to the terrain.
Using the three hex bases will let them fit better in a tight spot between terrain by lining them up. Every nook and cranny should be available to them.
I'm sure I don't. Too big, too unwieldy, I have waaay too many infantry units already based, and the 40mm bases don't fit in hexes, for when I want to play Tactical.
Infantry on 40mm bases allows an entire platoon to work as a single entity, and you don't have to worry about activation spam. That was an issue in previous editions - large numbers of infantry could swamp your opponent's activations - and this also meant that you didn't need the various combined model rules in play. Infantry were essentially another 'Gear' and took damage a bit differently, and had some special rules for how they dealt with terrain. However, infantry were designed after Gears (the primary stars of MA) and vehicles, and didn't get the attention initially that they probably needed. I suspect Dave would be amenable to any points you have about Infantry.
As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).
The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.
Sure, and that's a reasonable approach to take. It's why weapons like the mortar have a very long minimum range, and frankly in one of the original drafts IF weapons effectively worked that way. The split range attribute was the *only* range for the weapon, so a mortar was simply 18"-36", whereas an autocannon was 6-18". Various things got glommed back onto weapons which made the extreme / suboptimal split come back into play, and that ideal was lost in the shuffle.
Even with such a construct however - tank guns are a bit finicky. Let's say you set the mortar as having a range of 18-36". Obviously, the tank gun should have a longer range than that, when direct fired. So let's say it's 12-72" or something to that effect. Now, what's the split on the IF range, given the drop shadow / cannon elevation notes from above? Do you set it at the half-way point of 36-72"? On a standard 4'x4' or 4'x'6' table you're not going to be able to use the IF range *at all*, effectively eliminating that capability. If you set the IF at 24-72" that might see play more often, but starts to encroach on the mortar's range - do you drop it to compensate? With a 6" move as the base of the system, there's only so many ranges you can play with on a normal table - IMO you start getting situations where you've effectively cut capability even if the model retains it.
I didn't want to leave any systems like that lying around - if you can't effectively use IF on a standard table, then for simplicity's sake just remove the IF capability. Given the very low number of tank guns I could see making the exception (for the case above) but we never got around to that. Most testing was supposed to focus on Gear vs. Gear at the start, with vehicles folded in later...
As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).
Honestly, given the scale compression, it would probably make sense to have a 25mm round / hex represent a single platoon, but we simply never got around to testing infantry much. The 40mm round in the prototype rules was mostly an aesthetics issue; it looks more 'platoon like' than 3-4 guys cramped on a single hex base. Again, my guess is that Dave is very open to discussion about infantry, so I wouldn't consider this a done deal - just make your case effectively and I bet you can get it changed.
The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.
Sure, and that's a reasonable approach to take. It's why weapons like the mortar have a very long minimum range, and frankly in one of the original drafts IF weapons effectively worked that way. The split range attribute was the *only* range for the weapon, so a mortar was simply 18"-36", whereas an autocannon was 6-18". Various things got glommed back onto weapons which made the extreme / suboptimal split come back into play, and that ideal was lost in the shuffle.
Even with such a construct however - tank guns are a bit finicky. Let's say you set the mortar as having a range of 18-36". Obviously, the tank gun should have a longer range than that, when direct fired. So let's say it's 12-72" or something to that effect. Now, what's the split on the IF range, given the drop shadow / cannon elevation notes from above? Do you set it at the half-way point of 36-72"? On a standard 4'x4' or 4'x'6' table you're not going to be able to use the IF range *at all*, effectively eliminating that capability. If you set the IF at 24-72" that might see play more often, but starts to encroach on the mortar's range - do you drop it to compensate? With a 6" move as the base of the system, there's only so many ranges you can play with on a normal table - IMO you start getting situations where you've effectively cut capability even if the model retains it.
I didn't want to leave any systems like that lying around - if you can't effectively use IF on a standard table, then for simplicity's sake just remove the IF capability. Given the very low number of tank guns I could see making the exception (for the case above) but we never got around to that. Most testing was supposed to focus on Gear vs. Gear at the start, with vehicles folded in later...
I can see that, yes. Then again... I can't see the other IF guns firing "directly" either, and yet they can, unless I'm misreading. Either they are firing directly (in which case those are allowed for some reason) or they are shooting at range 0 without travel time whatsoever (which is another can of worms altogether, of course).
Frankly speaking, I get that two of the main reasons are to get further differentiation and to make it more verosimil, but for some reason, singling that one out when the rest get a pass seem... odd, to me.
Or in other words, a future tank rising its gun more than current ones spend my disbelief more or less as much as a mortar or a back mounted HRP shooting at range 0 without having to wait until the payload actually gets back ^_^.
That said, I have more of a problem with the Visigoth losing it's secondary role than with tank guns not shooting on IF. If it's MRPs were able to do IF, I wouldn't have much reason to argue.
As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).
Honestly, given the scale compression, it would probably make sense to have a 25mm round / hex represent a single platoon, but we simply never got around to testing infantry much. The 40mm round in the prototype rules was mostly an aesthetics issue; it looks more 'platoon like' than 3-4 guys cramped on a single hex base. Again, my guess is that Dave is very open to discussion about infantry, so I wouldn't consider this a done deal - just make your case effectively and I bet you can get it changed.
I can see that, yes. Then again... I can't see the other IF guns firing "directly" either, and yet they can, unless I'm misreading. Either they are firing directly (in which case those are allowed for some reason) or they are shooting at range 0 without travel time whatsoever (which is another can of worms altogether, of course).
Hurm... not sure, because I've not taken the time to checkout the Alpha rules. I *thought* we had settled that IF weapons had to fire IF all the time, but I'm not sure in retrospect. That was a back and forth point, IIRC. My gut was that weapons should be IF or DF and not be mixed for the sake of clarity, but I remember there being a few that the distinction felt awkward on. Though I might be getting mixed on the difference of DF, IF, high arc weapons, etc. It's been a while
That said, I have more of a problem with the Visigoth losing it's secondary role than with tank guns not shooting on IF. If it's MRPs were able to do IF, I wouldn't have much reason to argue.
IceRaptor wrote: Hurm... not sure, because I've not taken the time to checkout the Alpha rules. I *thought* we had settled that IF weapons had to fire IF all the time, but I'm not sure in retrospect. That was a back and forth point, IIRC. My gut was that weapons should be IF or DF and not be mixed for the sake of clarity, but I remember there being a few that the distinction felt awkward on. Though I might be getting mixed on the difference of DF, IF, high arc weapons, etc. It's been a while
Well, the only thing they say is that IF weapons have a -1d6 IF penalty, but they get less cover penalties and they can shoot wherever, so...
Also... now that I look at it, the weapons of the IF table, don't have IF, funnily enough, taking into account that the IF trait has other set of rules.
Also... now that I look at it, the weapons of the IF table, don't have IF, funnily enough, taking into account that the IF trait has other set of rules.
Not required, since they are from the Indirect Fire category and always get the -1D6, the IF Trait is added for weapon from other category that have the option to fire IF, but when doing so, suffer the -1D6 penalty.
riker2800 wrote: Not required, since they are from the Indirect Fire category and always get the -1D6, the IF Trait is added for weapon from other category that have the option to fire IF, but when doing so, suffer the -1D6 penalty.
It should say that, though, because right now, it doesn't.
Right now, you have the IF trait, that states clearly it can be used to chain it:
Indirect Fire [IF]: This weapon may chain an attack to a forward observation action but counts as a weapon in the indirect fire category if it does (see 8.4).
...and then the Indirect Fire Weapons table, that says:
Indirect Fire Weapons: (apply the 1D6 Indirect Fire penalty to attacks with these weapons)
So, what it actually says is that all the weapons on that list get to apply the penalty, but nothing else at all. You actually have to go all over the way to section 14.3a, on the EW actions, to learn that yes, weapons in the Indirect Fire Table, may chan indirect attacks to a FO action. Maybe they should clarify that on the table, too. Or better yet, just add the table header to the IF trait and put it on every weapon that needs it. It would be less complicated, you know. I really can't understand the rationale of splitting the two rules.
You have a point, indeed it should be added in section 8.4d that weapon from this category always get a -1D6 penalty for firing even if firing directly at models and that they may chain indirect attack to FO action.
riker2800 wrote: You have a point, indeed it should be added in section 8.4d that weapon from this category always get a -1D6 penalty for firing even if firing directly at models and that they may chain indirect attack to FO action.
If they do that, though, they'll have:
- IF weapons that use the IF rules and are in the Indirect Weapons table.
- IF weapons that use the IF rules and are not in the Indirect Weapons table. But that work exactly the same way as the ones from the above category.
Because reasons.
Honestly, if they're to work that way, I don't see the need of having a table for them. Just give the trait to any weapon that needs it.
The IF table is required because those weapons always suffer the IF penalty when firing, even in direct.
While the IF Trait is for weapon not from the IF category that fire normally in direct (most being from the ballistic category), but if choose to fire indirectly, then they get the -1D6 penalty.
riker2800 wrote: The IF table is required because those weapons always suffer the IF penalty when firing, even in direct.
While the IF Trait is for weapon not from the IF category that fire normally in direct (most being from the ballistic category), but if choose to fire indirectly, then they get the -1D6 penalty.
That is still because reasons. There is no rhime or reason of why one weapon gets in the table and another doesn't. You have the Field guns in, but the grenade launchers out, for example (And no, it's not because field guns are artillery weapons, they're not. The AGs are artilley weapons. FGs are very clearly multi-purpose cannons).
I don't think that way is optimal to differentiate that. It feel like it would be better with two Traits, an IF one and another, maybe Inaccurate or something, to make up for it.
Then again, I also feel that Beam, Missile, and maybe even Melee should be traits. And Ballistic doesn't need to exist, because they work as default weapons.
riker2800 wrote: That could be another option, but then you simply get a bigger Ballistic weapons table and need to add one more Trait, and go back to each model and add the new Trait...
I really don't see the issue with how it is done right now.
The issue is that you're using Traits for some things but not for others, so you end up obfuscating rules. Unless it is stated in the datacard that a weapon is ballistic, or Beam, or IF or whatever, you're missing out important information about it, that you'll only get to know if you go to the tables (which, currently, are also more hassle than worth it, due to the big weapon variations).
Let's say we do that for the vehicles, too. Hey, we all know a Gear is a walker, we don't need to add "W" to the movement! And a tank is obviosly not a Walker, let's get that "G" the feth out!
Be coherent. If you're using Traits, use it for everything, so as not to obfuscate rules where there is no need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
riker2800 wrote: However, doing so will make data card more crammed, since you'll have to add more Traits.
I'd rather have the datacard more crammed than to lose info needed in the game. You'd still need to state what kind of weapon it is, if you want the card to be useful.
I kind of agree with Albertorius here.I do think weapons need to be clarified either sticking with the traditional weapon table or going to the system of attributes. The main thing (to me) is to minimize look-ups (I still don't have the weapon chart for any edition memorized, nor do I want to)
As to movement, I do feel it should be specified if it makes a difference. I think Albertorious might be being sarcastic here, but I've ha a weird morning and might not be piking it up clearly.
Balance wrote: As to movement, I do feel it should be specified if it makes a difference. I think Albertorius might be being sarcastic here, but I've ha a weird morning and might not be piking it up clearly.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic there, sorry for not clarifying. It was meant to say that I feel it is equally unreasonable to do that than to keep the type of weapon out of the datacard.
And we're back to mind numbing decisions like same exact model, different TV. At least he gave up on it for that one case, I hope he understands just how flawed it is to give factions discounts on models as opposed to greater/lesser availability.
Also, it looks like he added a bunch of Hunter variants, or I just missed them from the initial alpha northern list, (Hey I don't play North, so I don't look that closely at them). These variants are exact mirrors of the South, and variants they never got before. I thought the goal was to make the factions different, not the exact same?
They also seem to be floundering with what to do with Autocannons and Rocketpacks and differentiating them. Split fire seemed overpowered the moment I saw it, as it's basically a better area affect weapon, to the point where some models have rocket packs that will never see use. (just like the old version)
And one last bit, Fire seems broken because it ignores armor, making it oddly more effective than any of the anti-tank weapons at killing heavy tanks.
ferrous wrote: And we're back to mind numbing decisions (...)
That's business as usual for DP9, sadly. This highly dysfunctional process is how they work, and they like it that way. Why change the winning formula that brought us gems like Arena or Blood Debt after all ?
The only difference, this time, is that it's wide in the open. Any questions that go beyond points of detail will be happily ignored by the writer, whose actual design goals remain thoroughly opaque. For example "why are we checking unit values, when the basic rules are not final ?" will not get an answer.
You can try to assess a unit's relative value when the rules are still in flux when you have ridiculous cases like
Unit 1: has X and costs 10. Unit 2: has X, Y, and Z and costs 10.
Those simple type checks and balances didn't seem to be a major part of cross faction analysis. I agree that some points values should change when the rules do (like if you make an ability much better or much worse) but we are where we are. The official playtesting lists was with a few exceptions dead and ignored since May of last year and they're trying to get a product on the table to sell by Gencon.
I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by a basic starter list for each faction (infantry, stock Jager/Mamba/Cobra/Iggy, stock light and heavy tanks for the south, stock Naga) to test out the rules for a few months instead of throwing everything haphazardly together with little apparent overall planning... but the cat is out of the bag. Fixing a broken model's stats or costs in the interim is still a practical minor improvement over leaving it in or till the last minute even if the rules are somewhat in flux. .
The problem with that is that's it's wasting testers' time. All those verification, for all models ? They will have to be redone anyway each time the rules change.
Even worse, some pairs will be compared with rules A, others with rules B, and so on. You think they are incoherent ? Imagine a situation where the models are costed for different rulesets!
You only work on unit costs when the rules are fixed and immutable, Doing it early is a dangerous waste of time.
warboss wrote: (...)
I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by ...
You're kind of supporting the point I'm trying to make there, that this playtest's management, is at best, quite terrible.
I also cannot believe they intend to have it ready for GenCon. Well, ok, this being DP9, I can actually believe it...
warboss wrote: (...)
I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by ...
You're kind of supporting the point I'm trying to make there, that this playtest's management, is at best, quite terrible.
I also cannot believe they intend to have it ready for GenCon. Well, ok, this being DP9, I can actually believe it...
I do but I'm taking a more practical approach... lemonade from lemons and all. In any case, having any timely response to feedback is better than what happened during most of the previous 6 months on the "proof of concept" testing (not sure what to call the previous year as what we are in now is idubbed the "alpha"). There will be a paper product to sell at gencon (the "beta") so I'd rather than unit costs be partially fixed (even if only partly due to rules in flux) rather than keep blatantly broken ones in the first paid product.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrondeau wrote: The problem with that is that's it's wasting testers' time. All those verification, for all models ? They will have to be redone anyway each time the rules change.
Even worse, some pairs will be compared with rules A, others with rules B, and so on. You think they are incoherent ? Imagine a situation where the models are costed for different rulesets!
You only work on unit costs when the rules are fixed and immutable, Doing it early is a dangerous waste of time.
I again agree with you in theory but the actual practice and implentation varies significantly and that is what we have to work with. I haven't seen many actual battle reports so I doubt there are too many people's time being wasted by tweaks. Even in the private playtesting, my multiple (4 IIRC) public offers for playtesting games didn't garner any response once IceRaptor bowed out. While I don't doubt that someone out there is playing somewhere, I suspect theory is driving much more of the feedback than actual experience. Some things (like the original Warrior stats) were so broken that they didn't need any games to prove their utter ridiculousness so theorygearing has its uses. As I said above, lemonade from lemons. The info is out there and the schedule is likely set in stone so why not try to make the best of it and correct broken units even if only partially? You can keep berating your friend for taking the stupid shortcut that took you over an unpaved road that caused the flat tire or you can get out and help change it and look out for further hazards. Both are technically "right" but only the later helps the current situation.
I again agree with you in theory but the actual practice and implentation varies significantly and that is what we have to work with. I haven't seen many actual battle reports so I doubt there are too many people's time being wasted by tweaks. Even in the private playtesting, my multiple (4 IIRC) public offers for playtesting games didn't garner any response once IceRaptor bowed out. While I don't doubt that someone out there is playing somewhere, I suspect theory is driving much more of the feedback than actual experience. Some things (like the original Warrior stats) were so broken that they didn't need any games to prove their utter ridiculousness so theorygearing has its uses. As I said above, lemonade from lemons. The info is out there and the schedule is likely set in stone so why not try to make the best of it and correct broken units even if only partially? You can keep berating your friend for taking the stupid shortcut that took you over an unpaved road that caused the flat tire or you can get out and help change it and look out for further hazards. Both are technically "right" but only the later helps the current situation.
That's the difference, I believe: you still think that it's helping. To be blunt, DP9 can not afford to make the same mistakes again. At this point, a bad release, even if it's not the worst possible, is worse than no release. No release would leave them on life-support. A bad release will finish them. They seem invested in making those mistakes again. It looks like they would rather destroy the company and HG than change.
Also, the playtest structure without guidance is only going to generate comments based on whatever the testers think. You want people to play and test ? Give them something concrete to test, and show them concretely that their significant investment in time and effort is useful. Show that the progress is directly related to their testings. Well, that, or pay them.
Give out pre-made lists (for both players), and ask everyone to test them. Explain what you want to know, and how their testing will directly improve the game.
Hypothetical playtest manager wrote: Ok, for the next 2 weeks, I want to make sure that having more activations is not a winning factor. To do so, both players A and B will have access to 8 Troopers, 2 Scouts and 2 Fire Support, listed below. Player A will have them grouped as (2 Troopers)*2 + (2 Troopers, 2 Scouts) + (2 Troopers, 2 FS). Player B will have them grouped as (2 Troopers)*4 + (2 Scouts) + (2 FS).
Try to play at least 2 games, with the list swapped between the players between each game. Report who won each game, using which list. This way, we will be able to see if one of the list has an inherent advantage. Normally, both should win around 50% of the time. Also report what kind of imbalance you see, if any.
Yes, it's not fun. It's testing. It's not supposed to be fun. Providing guidance reduces paralysis, on top of all the other procedural advantages I wall-of-texted about a few pages ago.
EDIT:Maths is hard before the third coffee; 3x5 is not a multiple of 2; figures need to be adjusted on all 3 sentences, not just on the first and last;3x2 <> 8
Give out pre-made lists (for both players), and ask everyone to test them. Explain what you want to know, and how their testing will directly improve the game.
I agree completely.
riker2800 wrote: Well said Warboss, not enough people are getting their hand dirty to help improve things.
As Hudson and Mrondeau pointed out, I still believe I can make a difference even if only slightly. That said.. my comment was made with the full understanding and recognition that a common theme for people who tried to get their hands dirty and help is getting mud thrown in their face by the very company they're trying to help.
For the record, working, proven test procedures such as this one were sent to Dave at the start of the alpha. He didn't bother answering, and instead went with the tried and true DP9 methods.
As Hudson and Mrondeau pointed out, I still believe I can make a difference even if only slightly. That said.. my comment was made with the full understanding and recognition that a common theme for people who tried to get their hands dirty and help is getting mud thrown in their face by the very company they're trying to help.
Oh, you'll be able to make a difference, sure. I'll go with the car as an example. Currently, the car's engine is faulty, the direction wonky, and the less said about the suspension, the better. Among other things.
If you keep up the good work, you should be able to have the car polished, and maybe the trunk fixed as well. The final result will still be a dud of a car. You want to know why ? Because DP9 is fine with selling it that way.
Wow, this has been interesting. Stumbled across this thread and gave it a quick read.
I use to be into Heavy Gear way back when 1st edition was out. I bought the rulebook on a lark (still not sure why I did that) and fell in love with the setting. Started picking up all of the other books they were coming out with and even picked up the old RAFM minis. And when they switched to their own minis, I even picked up those as well.
Most of my gaming involved using counters and hex-based maps as that was what they were using initially. It eventually morphed into miniature gaming but the rules were still more or less hex-based.
Personally, I stopped following Heavy Gear pretty much after the second computer game came out. Again, I really loved the setting of Heavy Gear and all of the designs they came out for the various gears; they had a certain 'character' to them. However, things started to change; the vehicles and gears that they were coming out were starting to become more 'optimized' or more 'munchy'; I think I still remember who was kind of responsible for that. Not that there is anything wrong with it but it seemed like there was a change of thinking.
Then the setting was started to get messed around with, especially when someone from Activision wasn't happy that Paxton didn't have much other than the Warrior and Warrior IV and this whole lunacy of the 'Elite' series started coming out.
This kind of put a bad taste in my mouth so as a result, I started paying less attention to Heavy Gear and eventually dropped it.
Looking at one of the earlier posts, someone made a comparison to WH40K. I think I understand where that is coming from.
It's not that the game is being played like 40K but more with squad composition. Initially, we had a long list of Gears with different variants and picked our squads according to that.
Before, they didn't have this whole bit about swapping out weapons for +X points and dropping certain perks or weapons and so on. I think that is the whole 40K reference the person was making.
The more I think about it, the more I think there probably should be a complete split between the RPG or fluff and the miniature game; by trying to cling on to the fluff, you don't get good optimized Gears, which is not what you want in a miniature game. Why have 'useless' choices if no one is going to take them, other than because it is 'fluffy'?
I don't know, I could be wrong as Blitz seemed to play quite differently from before but the thing that pops into mind is the laser on the Hun. I think it was mentioned before but the laser was meant as an AA weapon according to the fluff. But I remember when using the Hun in a game, the laser became it's main weapon, instead of the HRF it had. After all, why use the HRF instead of the laser? The laser did more damage and was more accurate. The only thing preventing me from constantly using the laser was that it had a limited amount of shots. So therefore, the fluff doesn't exactly mesh well with the actual usage.
Sorry, I'm kind of rambling and my thoughts are all over the place as there are tons of things I could probably say about Heavy Gear (it's still amazing how often I'll think about the game even though I haven't touched it for probably more than a decade). Bottom line, personally, I think they probably should 'reboot' everything and separate the stats from the fluff stuff to ensure that you have well-designed and optimized gears.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the fluff. I still flip through my old HG sourcebooks even though it has been ages since I've done anything HG related.
It's just that I'm not really sure if you can satisfy both criteria of making it adhere to the original fluff and make it an optimal wargame without any 'useless' options.
First thing that pops into mind is the Black Mamba's 'glass back'. Yeah it gives it character but really, why bother with it in a wargame?
I remember awhile back someone commenting on why the Grizzly has two MRPs as that just makes its TV shoot up more and that it was more optimal to take one bigger MRP instead. Yeah, number-crunching wise it makes more sense to do that but it is so much cooler to have it have two MRPs, especially if you've seen that one picture in the original rulebook that has a Grizzly standing there and opening up with its two MRPs.
Redeemer31 wrote: Don't get me wrong, I loved the fluff. I still flip through my old HG sourcebooks even though it has been ages since I've done anything HG related.
It's just that I'm not really sure if you can satisfy both criteria of making it adhere to the original fluff and make it an optimal wargame without any 'useless' options.
First thing that pops into mind is the Black Mamba's 'glass back'. Yeah it gives it character but really, why bother with it in a wargame?
I remember awhile back someone commenting on why the Grizzly has two MRPs as that just makes its TV shoot up more and that it was more optimal to take one bigger MRP instead. Yeah, number-crunching wise it makes more sense to do that but it is so much cooler to have it have two MRPs, especially if you've seen that one picture in the original rulebook that has a Grizzly standing there and opening up with its two MRPs.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Dream Pod 9 should just man up and separate completely the RPG setting from the wargame setting, in a way similar to what they did with Jovian Chronicles/Lightning Strike (as in, alternate timelines and settings made for the needs of each game.
And they should say they are doing so. That would quell the gripes for many people, knowing they're doing changes for a reason. But alas...
IceRaptor, in case you're still watching: I'm thinking about trying to integrate your rolling system (bonuses and maluses as dice with different X+ for adding +1 to the roll with dice) to the 2nd edition HGRPG system. I was thinking about doing it via skill rating (or well, actually Complexity at first), but I'm not sure yet.
Albertorius wrote: IceRaptor, in case you're still watching: I'm thinking about trying to integrate your rolling system (bonuses and maluses as dice with different X+ for adding +1 to the roll with dice) to the 2nd edition HGRPG system. I was thinking about doing it via skill rating (or well, actually Complexity at first), but I'm not sure yet.
I'm still here, just haven't felt the need to jump in on any of the conversations recently. I'm trying to keep a pulse on the three venues I know have discussions about it.
I had many discussions about adapting it to the RPG before, and though I never got to test it I think it should work well with skill remaining the number of dice you throw, attributes as the augment score instead of a straight modifier but keeping modifiers for other boosts. It makes it a bit more hodge-podge unfortunately, but it should directly correlate talent to success without penalizing experience unduly. I'd love to hear what your success is, so please let me know how it goes.
There's a recent thread in the public alpha section that's basically the perfect illustration of everything dysfunctional about DP9 these days :
http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=16051 It ended up getting locked, with a final post by the lead designer that's worth reading 4 pages for.
I like that the designer does not want to explain his intentions to avoid biasing the testers and because he wants to design based on the testers' opinion of what should do what. Then, in the same post, says that he will ignore what the testers concluded because it does not match his intentions.
In other words, he wants the testers in control, as long as they want what he wants.
It's a bit too bad the thread got locked, cause at least one of Dave's assertions (+1 PEN is better than +1d6 always) is factually incorrect. I feel like if the two independent debates had been in their own threads there's some more discussion that could have been had there.
MrThud wrote: It's a bit too bad the thread got locked, cause at least one of Dave's assertions (+1 PEN is better than +1d6 always) is factually incorrect. I feel like if the two independent debates had been in their own threads there's some more discussion that could have been had there.
Let me see if I have the right of it, Its only factually incorrect if the extra die was less than the highest other dice, if one of the other dice was a six, for example, than the best the additional die would do is add +1 to the outcome? If on the other hand, it's the highest die (lets say all the other dice were 1s, it could contribute quite a bit.)
Which would give burst a better curve, that tops out at a lower point (ie, nubs using Burst have a better chance of having some success), while Rifles, while having less chance of success, when they did succeed, would do more damage. Which sounds like +1 Pen for rifles would've been a pretty easy thing to make them play, like you know, rifles.
Yeah, that's the essential of it - at low dice an extra d6 is worth more than 1 PEN. The extreme is at 0d6 (ie. result is a 1) an extra die is worth substantially more than just 1 PEN. It actually works out in favour of the *AC in a lot of normal situations.
MrThud wrote: It's a bit too bad the thread got locked, cause at least one of Dave's assertions (+1 PEN is better than +1d6 always) is factually incorrect. I feel like if the two independent debates had been in their own threads there's some more discussion that could have been had there.
I don't think Dave was interested in debate at all, especially about proper playtest procedures.
Yeah, that's the essential of it - at low dice an extra d6 is worth more than 1 PEN. The extreme is at 0d6 (ie. result is a 1) an extra die is worth substantially more than just 1 PEN. It actually works out in favour of the *AC in a lot of normal situations.
Oh, it's not just that. His justification for the current rifle/AC split being balanced (AC better under 12", rifles better above 36") is completely faulty, given that the average table is 48 by 48, and 25% of terrain is recommended. You're not going to be shooting above 36" very often...
MrThud wrote: Yeah, that's the essential of it - at low dice an extra d6 is worth more than 1 PEN. The extreme is at 0d6 (ie. result is a 1) an extra die is worth substantially more than just 1 PEN. It actually works out in favour of the *AC in a lot of normal situations.
That's generally correct; +1D6 is worth 'more' than 1 PEN in most cases, because the extra die shifts you towards the higher results, like so:
It's worth noting that rifles appear as both 'sniper rifles' on elite units, and 'light AT guns' on various vehicles. If you talk about just the former, you want them to have a range advantage (which they do) but they also probably need a little something ontop of that as well. +1D or +2D when braced tended to allow you to shoot through cover with some success, making the range versus cover issue less of a concern. However, those units also need their sensors massaged to make that work. Essentially, units like the Panther, Black Cat, SEBM and others look like snipers, and probably need to be massaged to work like them, but they were lower priority to get 'right' than the basics.
I'm not keeping up with the rules changes, but is it possible that you're overlooking additional elements on those units (high sensor ratings, etc) that would allow them to function as snipers *through* cover?
I agree he is pretty firm about keeping with the current procedure, and I actually also agree that a more rigorous test procedure could produce more valid results.
I think where I differ is in that I think that the idea that the current mishmash procedure is unable to produce good changes - Dave has already made some changes based on forum feedback. Sure, some stuff has been ignored (unduly or not), but there's been a number of (mostly) good changes as a result of forum discussions. Is it the optimal approach? No, I don't think so. But I have worked on several projects where suboptimal procedures have produced reasonable results.
I also disagree with Dave's idea that rifles are a useful weapon for shooting at offboard support. It conveniently ignores that most off-map support units are going to be tanks or other heavy support, which rifles are pretty pointless against. Saying that a primary weapon like an *RF is "balanced" because it is useful in a real corner case and is strongly worse in most others is not really valid, IMO.
It's worth noting that rifles appear as both 'sniper rifles' on elite units, and 'light AT guns' on various vehicles. If you talk about just the former, you want them to have a range advantage (which they do) but they also probably need a little something ontop of that as well. +1D or +2D when braced tended to allow you to shoot through cover with some success, making the range versus cover issue less of a concern.
<snip>
I'm not keeping up with the rules changes, but is it possible that you're overlooking additional elements on those units (high sensor ratings, etc) that would allow them to function as snipers *through* cover?
I think the thing relative to *ACs is that they have Burst, so they get an additional 1d6 always. So even though some snipers have Precise (conditional extra d6 when Braced), they are a pretty poor cousin to *ACs except beyond Range 36. Which as Hudson points out is a pretty rare range, especially rare effective range with a good amount of cover on the table. It also ignores the *AC's currently incredibly powerful Split which lets you do multiple shots in a 6" radius.
MrThud wrote: I think the thing relative to *ACs is that they have Burst, so they get an additional 1d6 always. So even though some snipers have Precise (conditional extra d6 when Braced), they are a pretty poor cousin to *ACs except beyond Range 36. Which as Hudson points out is a pretty rare range, especially rare effective range with a good amount of cover on the table. It also ignores the *AC's currently incredibly powerful Split which lets you do multiple shots in a 6" radius.
Yup. Autocannons were designed to intentionally be useful, as opposed to how they were before. However, other weapons needed to be tweaked relative to them...
Yeah, which is what spawned the thread, with a lot of people pushing just upping Rifle PEN by 1 as a balance (along with some dropping the Rifle's min optimum range to match the *AC). It seemed pretty clean, but was shot down for what seemed like some pretty shaky reasons.
MrThud wrote: I agree he is pretty firm about keeping with the current procedure, and I actually also agree that a more rigorous test procedure could produce more valid results.
I think where I differ is in that I think that the idea that the current mishmash procedure is unable to produce good changes - Dave has already made some changes based on forum feedback. Sure, some stuff has been ignored (unduly or not), but there's been a number of (mostly) good changes as a result of forum discussions. Is it the optimal approach? No, I don't think so. But I have worked on several projects where suboptimal procedures have produced reasonable results.
The problem is not that the current procedure cannot produce good changes, it's that whether or not the changes are good is random, and that it is perfectly designed to let problems unfixed. This is not speculation: that's what happened during every single playtest since LnL. Confirmation and sampling biases alone kill the validity of the tests. Since the sampling is not random, quantitative techniques are mostly unusable (even assuming you manage to get a decent sampling size. You won't) and the feedback will be contradictory, so the designer will have to choose who to listen to on any given point. Ultimately, the designer is still the one deciding, with limited to no input coming from the anecdotes. This test procedure is only good to make the designer feels confident about his decisions.
To be even more direct, and with the caveat that I give DP9 and DP9's employees 0 credibility (been lied to too often for that), this procedure is perfect for a designer who want to do whatever he wants, without being accountable to anyone, and who does not want to bother with the boring parts of the jobs, like "thinking critically", "doing maths", "planning", and "coherent design". Use this test procedure, and you can always deflect criticism by "we tested it, so it's good", "it did not come up during the tests", "we tried, the testers did not test enough" and "the testers only complained, they did not suggest". All of those have actually been used by DP9 and DP9's employees. At this point, it's looking to me like that's what they want in a test procedure: a way to deflect criticism.
This is not happening in a vacuum. The current procedure was tried before, many times, and always failed the same way. That's the fundamental issue. What I'm suggesting is not the only way to get good results, but the current procedure is not going to work, is not designed to work, and has never worked.
Maybe we are just cynical in different ways. I am not sure I trust DP9 to come up with tests with enough coverage and to interpret results systematically enough to go with a pure command-driven approach. With that assumption I see some value in just the shotgun issue-raising that happens on the DP9 forum; I don't think Dave is ignoring issues out of any intentional malice, rather out of not considering all game issues through.
Was there an open forum in previous playtests? (I wasn't involved in them.) I feel like the openness of the alpha testers forum is very much a good thing from the usual closed-door nature of communications with DP9.
Given that the designer is trying to direct the feedback to an email address, that he explicitly tries to keep the testers in the dark and that he seems more interested in explaining to the testers that they are wrong than on listening, I'm afraid that the openness is illusory and is seen as a necessary evil, only there to deflect criticisms about the lack of communication.
That being said, LnL had a private forum, the other one I participated in was designed to isolate testers from each others. From what I heard, the more recent ones had mailing lists.
It is the first time that the playtest forum and rules are visible to all, with the exception of a portion of the original Blitz.
MrThud wrote: Yeah, which is what spawned the thread, with a lot of people pushing just upping Rifle PEN by 1 as a balance (along with some dropping the Rifle's min optimum range to match the *AC). It seemed pretty clean, but was shot down for what seemed like some pretty shaky reasons.
That was the original design... a LRF would +1 PEN over a LAC. However, even that's lacking, and needs more 'characterization' for the rifles to be considered first class citizens. However, rifles often come with Stealth... so you have to be careful about how you set it up to work both with and without Stealth. A Jaguar Pathfinder w/o Stealth that has a Rifle needs to have a role the same as a Panther. Ideally they work in some way that makes it a hard choice between taking a Jaguar w/ MAC and Jaguar w/ MRF a difficult choice. *shrug*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrondeau wrote: Ultimately, the designer is still the one deciding, with limited to no input coming from the anecdotes. This test procedure is only good to make the designer feels confident about his decisions.
IMO, the most interesting, and most difficult part of designing a game is articulating what you want it to do. That's difficult when you have a clean slate - but Dave has the rather unenviable position of having to refactor and existing design. Unlike in CS, what he can and cannot break is more defined, and he's got a really hard road to try to keep the 'feel' of HG - which is different for each person that played it - and find a new road that lets them be profitable. It would be massively simpler if you could simply say that a Grizzly has a single rocket pack and didn't have to deal with people saying "but I liked it as two" in this particular case. In short, he may simply need some validation because there's only one of him, and so many places to be.
I'm not going to defend (or condemn) the testing process - but at the end of the day, the results will be decided rather simply. People either like the new game, and HG blossoms - or they don't, and the line becomes unprofitable. And it fades completely, instead of being held afloat by a handful of die-hards.
IMO, the most interesting, and most difficult part of designing a game is articulating what you want it to do. That's difficult when you have a clean slate - but Dave has the rather unenviable position of having to refactor and existing design. Unlike in CS, what he can and cannot break is more defined, and he's got a really hard road to try to keep the 'feel' of HG - which is different for each person that played it - and find a new road that lets them be profitable. It would be massively simpler if you could simply say that a Grizzly has a single rocket pack and didn't have to deal with people saying "but I liked it as two" in this particular case. In short, he may simply need some validation because there's only one of him, and so many places to be.
I agree that his task is not easy. It is a difficult task, no doubt about it. That being said, he is going the wrong way about it.
Some changes have to be made. The best way to get players to accept them is to explain the changes, explain why they are required, and why those changes could not be avoided. He's not doing any of that.
The Jaguar Pathfinder is a good example. The solution might be to replace the MRF by something else. That's acceptable, but that change must be explained.
Those decisions must be made anyway, and they are orthogonal to the test procedures. The tests are supposed to verify the impact of those design decisions on gameplay and balance. They cannot indicate whether or not those decisions respect the overall feel of the game.
As it is, changes are going to be made, but it's going to be a job half-done. DP9 is about to pay the full cost of a system/edition change no matter what, but they will have something that's not finished yet. That would be the third time in a few years.
I'm not going to defend (or condemn) the testing process - but at the end of the day, the results will be decided rather simply. People either like the new game, and HG blossoms - or they don't, and the line becomes unprofitable. And it fades completely, instead of being held afloat by a handful of die-hards.
"The Jaguar Pathfinder no longer has a MRF. It now has a JPR. A JPR looks exactly like a MRF, but has a different name and different stats.
We were forced to do this because the role of rifles does not match the role and capacities of Jaguar Pathfinders <insert description of both>.
It was either that, or have a compromise that would harm the role of <insert list of gears with MRF>, which is <insert role of gear with MRF>."
That's a last resort, but it's doable, and it's easier to do if you have a well defined role for each component.
Even then, i's not easy. Writing and designing games is not easy. That's why I buy games, instead of making them myself. It's work. I don't want my hobby to become my work.
Finally, the best way to confirm that fluff matches player expectation matches game performance is to ask the players directly. This involves telling them your interpretation of the fluff, and how it's supposed to play on the table.
For that matter, my expectation is that rifles should have the same role as laser weapons: long range snipping. That, or being removed altogether, since the alternative seems to be having them in the same niche as the autocanons. That niche is already filled. By the autocannons.
Would be better to change the model instances that don't really look like they have a RF, like the Hun or whatever that northern tank is that has a...LAC or something sad. But really, I don't think we're at that point yet.
Well, that was an example to show that you can fix those problems without changing anything about the physical models involved. Apply "form follows function," and all that.
The Klemm, Hun and Skimisher, of the top of my head, are better candidates for rifle-ectomy.
mrondeau wrote: The Klemm, Hun and Skimisher, of the top of my head, are better candidates for rifle-ectomy.
At least for the first two, simply giving them low powered AT guns was my solution. Seemed simplest to rewrite those models, and then focus rifles towards the 'Gear Sniper' ideal, rather than trying to make rifles bridge both of them.
mrondeau wrote: The Klemm, Hun and Skimisher, of the top of my head, are better candidates for rifle-ectomy.
At least for the first two, simply giving them low powered AT guns was my solution. Seemed simplest to rewrite those models, and then focus rifles towards the 'Gear Sniper' ideal, rather than trying to make rifles bridge both of them.
I agree that it seems like the best and easiest solution, yes. A LTG or something like that would probably do the trick.
For those more up to date, did they announce what rules system the new rpg will use? Silhouette, WEGish d6 from Aurora, or something totally different?
warboss wrote: For those more up to date, did they announce what rules system the new rpg will use? Silhouette, WEGish d6 from Aurora, or something totally different?
Seeing it's Autel and Mason, I'm guesing it will be a tweaked Silhouette 2nd edition. Maybe even with some stuff from SilCORE (I think there were a lot of worthwhile things there, although some maybe not needed for HG) and the new rolling from the Alpha, who knows. But I don't expect a system change.
They've also said this:
We will be using the original timeline from the storyline books, but we will be advancing it beyond the last book’s dates and events. The RPG will have some of the elements from the Blitz timeline, but some things that are more wargame-centric will be altered or eliminated, while other events will happen at a later date. The mystery of Temple Heights and the Koreshi will definitely be explored. Maybe your characters will be the ones to discover the hidden mysteries of the ancient chamber.
We also plan on looking at the historical events in much more depth. The early exploration of the colonies, the chaotic times on Earth during Kir Arya’s existence, and War of the Alliance are all rich points of time that could be explored.
...but I'm still taking it with a grain of salt. They are part of the desing team that gave us the new NuCoal, and although I don't actually mind it all that much in the wargame (there's a need for factions, there), it's inconsistency city over there, and a development not actually needed for the RPG.
That said, above they plainly state they'll be using the original timeline, so there will be changes from the latest books, that's for certain.
I'm glad they're kicking off a new RPG, though my RPGing group is more into high fantasy so I doubt it'll see play for me. More interest for the setting should only be a good thing for the future of HG, I figure.
However now that I know that Autel didn't just give up on Heavy Gear (as was my assumption given his sudden and mysterious silence on the forums), I wonder why there wasn't an official announcement about him stepping down as rules support months ago? It seems a little unprofessional to not at least give a final message that he was no longer in that role.
If there is one thing they are absolutely gak at, it's communicating changes like that. They had that rules forum thread (run by Hudsond), and instead of closing it, or putting a note that it was on hiatus, they just let it set idle as people consistently posted questions without getting answers.
Edit : Yeah, so apparently, I'm not supposed to follow my avatar's guidance and be an insufferable show-off, so, yeah, if you have questions on how it went, and why that Q&A thread fizzled out, ask away.
ferrous wrote: If there is one thing they are absolutely gak at, it's communicating changes like that. They had that rules forum thread (run by Hudsond), and instead of closing it, or putting a note that it was on hiatus, they just let it set idle as people consistently posted questions without getting answers.
I hate to say it, but DP9 has always had rules response issues. For instance, I don't think we *ever* got an official explanation of how the salary cap system was supposed to work in Heavy Gear Arena.
It's not just an issue. It's an aversion to doing it, and a complete lack of concern and respect for their customers. They literally do not care if they publish an unplayable mess. You bought it; they have your money. The rest is irrelevant to them.
mrondeau wrote: It's not just an issue. It's an aversion to doing it, and a complete lack of concern and respect for their customers. They literally do not care if they publish an unplayable mess. You bought it; they have your money. The rest is irrelevant to them.
That is a way of thinking I simply do not understand. Yes, you can have their money... this time. You probably won't next time, if the product is not up to people's expectations.
...which is, of course, a big part of the problem they are facing now (as in people got dissapointed and left, and now the company is survivivng on emergency oxygen). I feel that Autel and Mason may have done a very good thing distancing themselves from DP9, TBH.
Thanks for the info/update. I'm curious to see what mechanics they decide to use but I'm equally a bit worried about the story progression. Both of the folks involved in the new RPG venture are in large part responsible both for the lack of support over on the tabletop game side for rules issues as well as the more questionable/controversial advancements in story lines (like small factions magically sprouting multiple massive top tech lines seemingly overnight). What remains to be seen is how much of the above was due to simple neglect (regarding the lack of FAQs) as part of "I'm only freelance" syndrome and how much was due to directives from on high (regarding the story) demanding the shoehorning in of new factions/minis to sell figs.
In the end, I've lost alot of the enthusiasm I had for Heavy Gear between the stream of thought army lists and the push to probably April of the January North PDF for blitz.
warboss wrote: In the end, I've lost alot of the enthusiasm I had for Heavy Gear between the stream of thought army lists and the push to probably April of the January North PDF for blitz.
Let me tell you, you're not the only one. My interest in the wargame has mostly fizzled out by now. I think I'll be waiting for the game's release to see it and save much griping.
...but I'm much more of an RPG fan than a wargame one, so... this announcement coupled with the new HGRPG campaign I've just started (just last week) have made me quite excited about the RPG all over again. Despite myself.
Edit : Yeah, so apparently, I'm not supposed to follow my avatar's guidance and be an insufferable show-off, so, yeah, if you have questions on how it went, and why that Q&A thread fizzled out, ask away.
What did happen with that whole thing? I mean, I can understand not wanting to respond to each question, maybe wait and respond every month or whatever, but they just sort of let it hang there and rot on the vine, which is just awful.
Back in the day, when I was in Highschool, there was a game and comic shop just a stone's throw from school. Needless to say the place got a lot of foot traffic, it was where I first picked up 40k.
Towards the end of the place, the owner couldn't get his lease renewed because the owner of the property was an awful human being, some of the crowd started playing Heavy Gear. It seemed interesting enough, to me it looked like Battletech but without an oppressive amount of tables.
I never got into it though because it was right when I was getting into 40k big time. The first months of 4th Edition were heady days indeed and I just didn't have the time to learn a whole new game when I was busy trying to pass classes and stuff.
What did happen with that whole thing? I mean, I can understand not wanting to respond to each question, maybe wait and respond every month or whatever, but they just sort of let it hang there and rot on the vine, which is just awful.
Short answer :
They just plain don't care.
Longer answer :
Seriously, they really, genuinely, thoroughly don't care. I had to lobby hard, for months, to get the first "Q&A thread" started, and when it finally happened, my only role was to clarify things, and transfer the questions to the lead designer when they went beyond that.
The rules being what they are, "clarifications" were the exception, not the norm, and things went down-hill fast, since it would take weeks, plural, to get any rule answer from the team. Rule support was just not deemed prioritary. Or even important...
I had to start making the rulings themselves so that people could play their games, but eventually, I got tired of working without any internal support, and simply stopped, eventually resigning.
That's how the first Q&A thread ended up abandonned, and I don't think they noticed it...
A while after that, out of the blue, a new Q&A thread was started with great fanfare and the lead designer explaining how this was the first official Q&A thread. Very classy.
The thread lasted for 3 weeks before they stopped bothering with it...
So, to answer your question, yes, they let it hang there to rot, not once, but actually twice. Without any second-thoughts.
If you ever wanted another indicator, there's also the FAQ. You see, at one point, there was an update to the current rules, the Field Manual (which was required to make the game playable after the horror that was LnL). While mostly decent in term of rules, the FM had some problems, and was patched too. The patch was a new version of the PDF, with a slightly different colour. No change notes, nothing. Just a new version of the book. This obviously lead to a series of "but what did you change ?" posts on the official forums.
Being crazy and curious, I spent about 2 hours, with both PDFs open side by side on one screen, going page by page to find the differences. I also wrote down, at the same time, the rule issues I noticed. I was about to clean up those notes and post them on the forum, since I obviously was not the only one wanting to know. HudsonD convinced me to sent my notes to DP9's owner instead. This was done, and supposed to be used as the basis of the official FAQ.
The waiting started. I kept emailing, asking about the status and offering help. The answer, when the email was answered, was always to wait. After a couple of week, the answer was "Next Friday". I replied "Great! Do you want me to look at the final product, to confirm that the remaining rule issues and questions are answered ?". No reply, of course. The FAQ was not published on Friday. I emailed again, to say "Looks like there's a problem." No reply.
Come the weekend, someone asked again "What are the changes ?" We are talking 1-2 months after the update at this point. I replied with my notes, with the warning that those were unofficial, and a light snipe at DP9. By courtesy, I also emailed DP9. Within 30s, my post was deleted, and I had an angry email in my inbox. Granted, the snipe should not have been in the original post. That does not explain why the email contained a warning never to post that list again.
That should tell you all about DP9's priorities. Players are not even close to be one of them. "Players ask questions ? Who cares, they can wait. Something is embarrassing for us ? Quick! Remove it now!!"
PS: The FAQ was eventually published, weeks later. Some of the questions were answered. Others were not, because whoever answered them did not understand the difference between "Active Lock" and "Communication". It appears that this was silently corrected some time ago. It was left unfixed for at least 1 year.
I suspect that it was fixed when the promptly abandoned thread was started: I was complaining, loudly, about the whole thing on another forum, and it was getting embarrassing. As seen above, DP9 will ignore players for weeks, but make them lose face, and they act within 30s.
mrondeau wrote: It's not just an issue. It's an aversion to doing it, and a complete lack of concern and respect for their customers. They literally do not care if they publish an unplayable mess. You bought it; they have your money. The rest is irrelevant to them.
Given that the company has come close to cratering once already (back when they had to cut every game system except for Heavy Gear), you'd think that they'd pay a little more attention to basic customer questions...
Given that the company has come close to cratering once already (back when they had to cut every game system except for Heavy Gear), you'd think that they'd pay a little more attention to basic customer questions...
Funny you mention that, as they've pretty much shelved their other mini lines in the last few months...
There is a lot of material that they have to work through.
I can't say they are going about it 'the wrong way', because at least there is a way now. The RPG was written off by a lot of people a long time ago, so it's exciting to know that they are revisiting it.
I hope more folks share this and get it out there.
BrandonKF wrote:
I can't say they are going about it 'the wrong way', because at least there is a way now.
-Brandon F.
Moving, and moving in the right direction, are two different concepts. Now, there's some good bits in there, and some bad bits. Being on their own is good, but at the same time, the mention "by the folks that did TPS and FIF" is really ominous. The thing I'm most interested in remains the miniature line.
plastictrees wrote:Going by the last batch of comments I probably shouldn't be holding my breath for a new edition of Heavy Gear that would tidy things up then?
For the RPG or the wargame ? I have mixed feelings on the RPG, as mentionned above, although it's got potential.
The wargame on the other hand... Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath there.
LOL, the "new" version of the Blood Debt pdf is out and they're still the chief playtester's favorite child as before. They lost the EW2 on the GP CGL but they still keep LD2 without any TV cost or vet slot, gear stat boosts, free MACs, free melee trait on RFB that no one else gets, and free starting immunity to crossfire compared with Polar equivalents for no additional cost. The armies still pay nothing for full crossfire immunity and stealth units starting hidden in the applicable subfactions and there is NO downside to balance the cheaper airstrikes (like for example more expensive artillery). Infantry still get the crossfire immunity and extra +1 armor that others have to pay for at the low low price of nothing compared with other Field Guides.
Any other changes (or lack thereof) that I missed?
Well a change log would help, but DP9 doesn't like these much, so you'd have to double check everything, and I'm pretty sure forcing someone to read Blood Debt in detail is banned by the Geneva Convention...
So Brandon, have you submitted any stories for the anthology? I know it was technically the opposite of the SIU but submitting a sample may be a good idea if your own RPG is on hold at the moment.
@Hudson: There is a short Blood Debt changelog (complete with copy paste typo that you'll enjoy) over on the dp9 forums as I just checked.
My own RPG is indeed on hold. The artist who was drawing the works has gone into the USAF, for which I greatly respect him and admire him for his dedication to the U.S.
I notice Dave's responsiveness on the forum's dropped a lot over the past couple weeks - hopefully a temporary thing due to DP9's March sales.
The Alpha now is in what I would call "okay" shape. It's an interesting rule set, but it really needs a fair bit of cleanup, logic bug fixing, and a lot of streamlining. Which is what I'd put the non-Alpha Blitz rules at, really, but that's not a high bar to pass.
I would hope at this stage in the super-ambitious schedule overall there would be some heavy pruning going on in the rules department, but the overall trend seems to be adding rules and special actions. I do hope that trend gets reversed pretty soon.
I haven't even downloaded the newest version to be honest. Until I get an actual game scheduled, there is no point. I did see an intersting post though else about some massive schedule of books that they're planning for the RPG. Considering the team responsible is used to putting out 1-2 projects a year (one book and gear up), laying out plans for so many is a bit... ambitious to put it nicely. The only analogue I can think of is the most recent 2013 Palladium books catalog that hawked 20+ books for the year despite them at best coming out with 3-4 yearly and only got out 2 (neither of which was actually on the list).
While I applaud the ambitious expansion plans, I think they would have been better off playing those a bit closer to the chest and focusing on the relatively current era (TN1930+/-20) instead of getting people's hopes up for books spanning thousands of years.
As a side note, does anyone follow the HGA video game or pledged for it? I lost track of that one months ago and decided to go to their forums... which are now closed. They've got another countdown going for something else though. Hopefully this one won't end with a wimper and wah wah wah waaaah trumpet noise like the last one where the website was Error 404 for most of the day post 30 day countdown.
In reference to the video game, Mektek has closed their forums and opened an Alpha countdown for those who wish to help in the creation of the video game by donating $40. All who donate will be able to participate in the Alpha. The links are provided on Dream Pod 9's and Arkrite Press' Facebook pages, and I'm sure they are also on their Twitter pages as well.
Riker's battle report was very cool and well done, but it's no substitute for the developer staying on top of issues raised in the test. The last Alpha release had a lot of errors introduced and Dave's been responding to them in a pretty limited fashion.
warboss wrote:I haven't even downloaded the newest version to be honest. Until I get an actual game scheduled, there is no point.
I'm a bit on-hold myself, to be honest. I like the core mechanic of the Alpha rules, but am not sure that the amount of setting-detail being changes is for the best. I figure the setting detail is the part of the game people generally like so let's focus on that, not change it. But that's just my opinion, of course.
warboss wrote:I did see an intersting post though else about some massive schedule of books that they're planning for the RPG. Considering the team responsible is used to putting out 1-2 projects a year (one book and gear up), laying out plans for so many is a bit... ambitious to put it nicely. The only analogue I can think of is the most recent 2013 Palladium books catalog that hawked 20+ books for the year despite them at best coming out with 3-4 yearly and only got out 2 (neither of which was actually on the list).
It is quite ambitious. I wish the guys (Jason and Greg) well and I hope they're realistic. I'm hopeful some of the projects (like the fiction) are 'easy' to produce as they don't require playtesting or as much layout, but I expected they'd start a bit smaller to be honest.
warboss wrote:
While I applaud the ambitious expansion plans, I think they would have been better off playing those a bit closer to the chest and focusing on the relatively current era (TN1930+/-20) instead of getting people's hopes up for books spanning thousands of years.
Yes... I had suggested (the last time I talked to them, which would've been September-ish) that they look at FFG's route and do a focused game instead of something sprawling. I am a little concerned they're looking at this as a 1990s RPG publishing project, where a huge product line was a good thing, versus 2014 where there's a lot of room for 'one and done' or otherwise bite-sized product releases.
As a disclaimer, I haven't talked to those guys in a while and they might have some sort of resources to pull this off... I don't know either way.
warboss wrote:
As a side note, does anyone follow the HGA video game or pledged for it? I lost track of that one months ago and decided to go to their forums... which are now closed. They've got another countdown going for something else though. Hopefully this one won't end with a wimper and wah wah wah waaaah trumpet noise like the last one where the website was Error 404 for most of the day post 30 day countdown.
I'm a Mac user, and they've dropped mention of Mac since the Kickstarter crashed, so I'm not pledged for anything. Again, as with Arkrite. Also, as with the above, not thrilled that they're barely using the iconic designs. They've got some talented guys, but I'm wondering what direction they're going and if they're being realistic about it.
I wonder if the Forums thing was to deal with the constant questions about their old Mechwarrior stuff that they weren't really able to support any more?
Balance wrote: I'm hopeful some of the projects (like the fiction) are 'easy' to produce as they don't require playtesting or as much layout, but I expected they'd start a bit smaller to be honest.
I'll be blunt there: fiction is like a game. It's only easy to produce if you do not care about quality. With a few exceptions (looking at you, Asimov), it takes a while to write something good. There's a reason that good authors usually only have a few publications, in the order of 1-2 novels per productive years, in their entire careers.
So, given Jason's track record at DP9 (Jason's responsibility for his previous work does not disappear because he's technically independent now), I expect that this fiction will be at the level of bad self-insert fan-fiction. That's what TPS's fluff was, after all, and that's the level of "quality" he considers acceptable.
Albertorius
2014/03/27 AT 7:54 AM I like what I see, but right now it looks a bit overly ambitious. It feels like the plans from a much, much bigger company.
That said… very interesting
Greg
2014/03/27 AT 1:27 PM These are obviously multi-year plans, but we’re aiming high and we want to grow.
Rhoderic
2014/03/27 AT 8:30 AM This sounds really, REALLY ambitious. If I’m reading you right, you’re planning at least 13-15 sourcebooks in addition to the material in the core rulebook. One sourcebook for each of the five eras before Blood on the Wind, and one for each of the other colonies in the Distant Shores era makes 13 already. And that’s not counting a “base” sourcebook for Blood on the Wind, a sourcebook for the WfTN, or the “regional guides” and “army sourcebooks” you’ve also mentioned. And the novellas and fiction anthologies on top of that.
I sincerely hope you’ll still manage to keep things fairly light and airy, in line with the “quality over quantity” mentality that (judging by my limited experience) seems to prevail in the RPG scene today, in contrast to the “sourcebooks, sourcebooks, sourcebooks!” mentality of 15-20 years ago. Some sort of middle ground to comfortably stand on.
How “heavy” will a typical sourcebook be, in terms of the information contained within it (or, simply, page count)?
Jason
2014/03/27 AT 11:51 PM The plan is to concentrate on the core setting first. That would cover Blood on the Wind to Distant Shores. That being said, there’s a ton of material still in print out there covering that period. We do have some ideas about game resources for the core period that we’d like to do, and the never published colony books are at the top of that list. There’s one particular colony book that will be completely overhauled and re imagined, while the others will be updated, tweaked, and expanded. As far as the other eras, we will be testing the waters with the fans on what Era they want to see next, and all of the eras will see fiction in either novella or anthology format with supporting gaming material included.
Greg and I want to hear from the fans on what eras or supplements they would like to see. Please leave your comments and feel free to ask questions.
I'm glad they're starting with the current era as it meshes better with the minis as well. Personally, pre/during/post WOTA is my favorite era and what I consider "true" HG. Thanks for reposting the info.
I don't think I can handle how insanely crazy terribad the Alpha forum was.
Decided to drop in and peek after a few weeks of ignoring the damn thing, seeing what's changed.
What I get is a thread where some guy legitimately thinks it's a good idea to make a roll to see if your guy can get the cover bonus when he's already in cover, to simulate 'ducking at the right time'. God, it's just painful. The rest of the forums are more random balance tweaks for a game that doesn't even have it's movement, shooting and damaging rules figured out yet!
Edit : I understand my answer might sound sarcastic. It's not. It really is a typical DP9 playtest. The only difference is that it's public, for everyone to see.
As for your interrogations, well, asking why base rules aren't tested is ground for expulsion in a DP9 playtest.
Killionaire wrote: I don't think I can handle how insanely crazy terribad the Alpha forum was.
Decided to drop in and peek after a few weeks of ignoring the damn thing, seeing what's changed.
What I get is a thread where some guy legitimately thinks it's a good idea to make a roll to see if your guy can get the cover bonus when he's already in cover, to simulate 'ducking at the right time'. God, it's just painful. The rest of the forums are more random balance tweaks for a game that doesn't even have it's movement, shooting and damaging rules figured out yet!
If anything, it's gotten substantially worse.
I have mostly given up on the playtest completely by now, must admit. I don't even read it anymore most of the time unless pointed to it. Which is a shame.
HudsonD, I am asking whether people understand the basic rules, whether they could explain them to new players. Which was what you, Killionaire and Albertorius were discussing.
BrandonKF wrote: HudsonD, I am asking whether people understand the basic rules, whether they could explain them to new players. Which was what you, Killionaire and Albertorius were discussing.
That isn't rigging.
-Brandon F.
First of all, this is not what Killionaire, Alberto and others -myself included- were discussing. At all. Assuming your statement was made in good faith, you might want to spend more time trying to understand what people actually wrote.
Secondly, even if we were, your poll was written to allow only positive answers, which is as blatant a rigging as can be.
If you can't differenciate between asking "Is it easy to understand ? Yes/No" and "Name the parts that are easy to answer !", you're beyond redemption.
Last, but not least, your zeal in promoting the latest Aurora is starting to look suspect...
Sadly, I have no trouble believing you did this in good faith. That's not a praise, by the way.
I'm now very curious, which recent post(s) lead you to believe the main issue facing the current playtest is ease of learning ?
Killionaire wrote:I don't think I can handle how insanely crazy terribad the Alpha forum was.
Decided to drop in and peek after a few weeks of ignoring the damn thing, seeing what's changed.
What I get is a thread where some guy legitimately thinks it's a good idea to make a roll to see if your guy can get the cover bonus when he's already in cover, to simulate 'ducking at the right time'. God, it's just painful. The rest of the forums are more random balance tweaks for a game that doesn't even have it's movement, shooting and damaging rules figured out yet!
Sadly, I have no trouble believing you did this in good faith. That's not a praise, by the way.
I'm now very curious, which recent post(s) lead you to believe the main issue facing the current playtest is ease of learning ?
I posed the question to ask if people felt comfortable with the movement, shooting and damaging rules because Killionaire brought up the fact that the game 'doesn't even have its movement, shooting and damaging rules figured out yet'.
I asked if people felt those rules were good as-is, or if they needed work. You're more than welcome to say so there.
Heavily promoting a production without mentionning it features your own work is unethical. That you did so in genuine good faith is telling...
I wasn't aware that was considered unethical. Where I come from, you can be excited about something, but seeing as how there are others with their own work involved in the creation of Aurora I did not want to say "Oh, here's my stuff." and leave out the fact that Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Perkins both had an interview involved about the Heavy Gear Universe, and also having Mr. Jakar's very fine Gear Krieg artwork dismissed, or the new D6 rules for Peace River being given a pass.
So, I post the link.
You're aware that the first order of business that Arkrite Press LLC is up to is Rumble in the Jungle, Volume 1.
I have been heavily promoting everything that Arkrite has given, not just Aurora 8.2. You can go on my Google+ account and see how many times I've shared this to communities of roleplayers, every single blog update out of Arkrite's Arkana blog, and also on my Facebook profile, where I have re-posted the updates on my wall, in the personal community Heavy Gear Pictures that I made for fans of the game, and also in Infamous Pod Squad San Diego, Tabletop Skirmishers and Gamers on Games, with Knighthawk Games. I've also re-posted every single Arkana update on my own personal blog, to help add exposure. Am I very excited about this? Yes. 100 percent. Does it make me unethical? I don't believe it does. It makes me someone who genuinely wants to get the word out.
I posed the question to ask if people felt comfortable with the movement, shooting and damaging rules because Killionaire brought up the fact that the game 'doesn't even have its movement, shooting and damaging rules figured out yet'.
I asked if people felt those rules were good as-is, or if they needed work. You're more than welcome to say so there.
So, let me get this straight.
Out of the whole pages of posts that lambast the playtest, its processes, its direction, etc... You've only managed to register a single sentence, and then managed to misread it out of context ?
I'll be helpful, and quote the only bit you should work from :
I don't think I can handle how insanely crazy terribad the Alpha forum was.
In other words, "this playtest is FUBAR". Is that clear enough ?
I wasn't aware that was considered unethical. Where I come from, you can be excited about something, but seeing as how there are others with their own work involved in the creation of Aurora I did not want to say "Oh, here's my stuff." and leave out the fact that Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Perkins both had an interview involved about the Heavy Gear Universe, and also having Mr. Jakar's very fine Gear Krieg artwork dismissed, or the new D6 rules for Peace River being given a pass.
(...)
I have been heavily promoting everything that Arkrite has given, not just Aurora 8.2. You can go on my Google+ account and see how many times I've shared this to communities of roleplayers, every single blog update out of Arkrite's Arkana blog, and also on my Facebook profile, where I have re-posted the updates on my wall, in the personal community Heavy Gear Pictures that I made for fans of the game, and also in Infamous Pod Squad San Diego, Tabletop Skirmishers and Gamers on Games, with Knighthawk Games. I've also re-posted every single Arkana update on my own personal blog, to help add exposure. Am I very excited about this? Yes. 100 percent. Does it make me unethical? I don't believe it does. It makes me someone who genuinely wants to get the word out.
Oh, what you are trying to tell us, is that you chose not to reveal the release you were promoting involved your work, out of modesty ? How virtuous of you !
I suppose the same selflessness and modesty explains why your last paragraph eagerly promotes Arkrite press, without specifying you're working for them in an official capacity ?
Yes, I am now writing. I am very pleased for the opportunity. I am happy to be able to help, and I also pray that those who read my stories will enjoy them greatly. I also promise to do my utmost to make what I write the very best that I can make it. These are things are I intend to do.
Now, do I expect your personal support, HudsonD? No.
Honestly, as much as I would like to argue with you, it isn't going to change your opinion. So I will put my all into writing well. Good day and God bless you.
-Brandon F.
Edit: To be clear, the reason why I did not include the fact that my own writing was involved was because I wanted this to be the more 'official' announcement. Suffice to say, I wasn't involved in the creation of Arkrite Press LLC, and I was only recently approached to do some work for them. However, as you wish to make this whole thing about me, HudsonD, I will make it very simple. I just got involved, I'm excited to be involved, and this is the first time I will be given an opportunity to be published. So if that somehow smacks of 'unethical' to you, than I am quite sorry for your extremely low opinion of me as a person.
Look, this isn't about you, and you seem to have forgotten the purpose of this thread.
You've been consistenly misreading or downright ignoring whole paragraphs, posts and even pages. This thread is intended to list the major, crippling issues affecting DP9, and instead you've decided to use it as your personal tribune to praise the company and yourself !
Now, there's nothing wrong with self-promotion, as long as it's clearly labelled as such. That's the difference between "this company is awesome (and I work for them) !" and "this company is awesome". The former is called sharing your enthusiasm, the later is called lying by omission if you happen to actually work for said company.
In light of the above, I also note you chose to speak about yourself, and not about the consensus on the playtest's disastrous state...
I don't think it's fair to say it's a consensus that the playtest is a disaster. Majority opinion on this thread, sure. But there's a lot of activity on the DP9 forum, which is not the sort of thing you'd expect if the general consensus was that the playtest's a disaster.
The playtest is way too disorganized and should have been done in a more structured way. But even in its current extremely rough state, I still prefer the Alpha rules to the previous Blitz rules. So even for that fact alone I for one can't call the whole endeavour a disaster.
MrThud wrote: I don't think it's fair to say it's a consensus that the playtest is a disaster. Majority opinion on this thread, sure. But there's a lot of activity on the DP9 forum, which is not the sort of thing you'd expect if the general consensus was that the playtest's a disaster.
There's really not a lot of activity on the forum, or in this thread. In both case, there's a few posters talking in circle.
That being said, I would not use the DP9 forum as an indicator of general quality. DP9 spent the last few years going out of their way to get rid of anyone critical of them. The few that remain are more or less automatically ok with DP9's way of doing things. They think like DP9.
Essentially, concluding that the consensus is that the playtest is not a disaster based on DP9's forum is like concluding that everyone would vote for <insert favourite political party here> based on the opinion of <favourite party>'s convention. That's sampling bias (ironically, one of the thing that's making the playtest useless.)
MrThud wrote: I don't think it's fair to say it's a consensus that the playtest is a disaster. Majority opinion on this thread, sure. But there's a lot of activity on the DP9 forum, which is not the sort of thing you'd expect if the general consensus was that the playtest's a disaster.
The playtest is way too disorganized and should have been done in a more structured way. But even in its current extremely rough state, I still prefer the Alpha rules to the previous Blitz rules. So even for that fact alone I for one can't call the whole endeavour a disaster.
I suspect we're not disagreeing as much as you think. There are two things there, the product, that shows potential but is still very much in a rough state, and the "playtest" itself, which is the process intended to improve and refine the product. As much as the product itself has a good potential, the playtest process is disorganized mess that has little chances of reaching its goals (ie. A finished, well-polished, balanced product). That's what we are complaining about, there.
If patterns repeat themselves from previous projects, and by every measurable aspects they still are, the playtest is already pretty much done, and the current product, save for a few cosmetic elements, is what will end up released and sold to the public. A rough, unfinished, unbalanced mess.
(P.S : The DP9 boards aren't what I'd call very active, either.)
(Edit : Ninjaed on the board activity bit)
Congrats to Brandon for getting published in the fanzine and apparently more content at a latter date in the official RPG reboot!
After posting in a recent Battlefoam bag thread, it reminded me to check out the HG bag status since last Christmas season it was out of stock after the 75% off sale. Unlike other bags, it is still out of stock 5 months later so apparently they were just getting rid of the stock with a clearance and it is unlikely they'll restock them in the future if they haven't done it in the months since.
edit: Additionally, it looks like we finally have new Northern rules published!.... for the d6 Aurora fanzine rules. Still no word apparently from DP9 as to the status of the Blitz northern book. I guess the DP9 staff is doing an extra thorough job at making sure that Paxton still is better for less TV at every possible step.
I didn't actually say that the consensus is that the playtest is not a disaster. i just said that there is not a consensus that the playtest is a disaster. The burden is on the person making the claim there is a consensus opinion, which was not me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HudsonD wrote: I suspect we're not disagreeing as much as you think. There are two things there, the product, that shows potential but is still very much in a rough state, and the "playtest" itself, which is the process intended to improve and refine the product. As much as the product itself has a good potential, the playtest process is disorganized mess that has little chances of reaching its goals (ie. A finished, well-polished, balanced product). That's what we are complaining about, there.
If patterns repeat themselves from previous projects, and by every measurable aspects they still are, the playtest is already pretty much done, and the current product, save for a few cosmetic elements, is what will end up released and sold to the public. A rough, unfinished, unbalanced mess.
(P.S : The DP9 boards aren't what I'd call very active, either.)
(Edit : Ninjaed on the board activity bit)
Okay, fair enough. I actually have a lot of the same issues with DP9's behaviour and policies as others do on this thread. The running gag that is the release date of Northern army list PDF is a real case in point. I just think that I'm okay with baby steps. Dave is responding to issues raised by testers on a more or less weekly basis, which beats standard DP9 rules issue response times by a factor of what, 100? 1000? The fact that there's even an open forum that is being monitored by DP9 rules staff in any way at all is a real step forward.
There's been issues where Dave has been adamant about questionable design decisions and then backed down in the face of a lot of counter-argument. (Weighting TVs by faction was an egregious example of that.) Before this Alpha I have to say I have never seen anything like that from DP9, and it indicates that tester opinions are being listened to in some sort of aggregate way. So sure, I even agree it's a poorly designed process, but I won't go all the way to calling it a disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there are still major changes being made. The last couple weeks saw a major change to how Cover works. Now there's discussion about changing how Melee interacts with ranged attacks. Those are pretty big changes, so I wouldn't say the rules are down to cosmetic changes only yet.
MrThud wrote: I didn't actually say that the consensus is that the playtest is not a disaster. i just said that there is not a consensus that the playtest is a disaster. The burden is on the person making the claim there is a consensus opinion, which was not me.
Sorry, I meant to say that DP9's forum is not a good indicator of quality in general. I was just using the consensus regarding the playtest as an example.
I just think that I'm okay with baby steps. Dave is responding to issues raised by testers on a more or less weekly basis, which beats standard DP9 rules issue response times by a factor of what, 100? 1000? The fact that there's even an open forum that is being monitored by DP9 rules staff in any way at all is a real step forward.
The same setup existed previously, in the private playtest forums. All products tested this way ended up having glaring flaws. That's not a baby step, that's doing the same thing, only in public.
There's been issues where Dave has been adamant about questionable design decisions and then backed down in the face of a lot of counter-argument.
Now imagine the number of similar decisions he's making that are not tested because they don't affect directly something that testers are caring about.
The only reason his (incredibly stupid, there's no other word) decision to weight point cost based on faction was contested and changed is because he mentioned it off-hand. If it was not for that comment, he would still be doing it. People would be complaining about point costs, resulting in random changes because the underlying issue would not be addressed.
This is happening with other decisions right now, and will keep happening because the playtest procedure is perfectly designed to hide the problems.
This is not a test procedure, it's a way for the designer to deflect blame on the testers!
mrondeau wrote: The same setup existed previously, in the private playtest forums. All products tested this way ended up having glaring flaws. That's not a baby step, that's doing the same thing, only in public.
My understanding from other posters is that a lot of previous Beta testers were kicked out of the tests for pointing out flaws. Also that major issues raised were ignored. I don't really feel either has been happened for this Alpha. There's issues that have been raised that have so far been ignored, but overall the ones where there's been general traction that there is a real issue there (most recently with Cover and melee) have been at least responded to.
I just don't see the private cliques and banishment issues to the extent that people have described for previous tests. The current Alpha really is no better? I'm genuinely curious, because there seems to be some disconnect between how I've seen the previous tests described and how this one is running. A lot of problems with the current test I would ascribe to apathy and inertia more than intentional malice.
I just don't see the private cliques and banishment issues to the extent that people have described for previous tests.
That's because they already occurred. The testers that remain are those that were not banned or disgusted by the previous playtests. Not to mention that you can't really ban someone from a public playtest. You just ignore them silently.
I'm genuinely curious, because there seems to be some disconnect between how I've seen the previous tests described and how this one is running. A lot of problems with the current test I would ascribe to apathy and inertia more than intentional malice.
Yes, there was no malice in the previous playtests. Just apathy and inertia, confirmation bias and random changes. That's the thing: the designers want to make some changes. So they pick the test reports that justify those changes, and listen to them. They ignore the reports that indicate that those changes would be bad. If they like something as is, they pick the reports that say that all is well and ignore the others. Once in a while, something is wrong enough that almost everyone is screaming, and that get fixed. Or not, if the designers really disagree. In that case, the reports saying that all is well are somehow more credible, or the testers clearly did not understand something. They can do that without meaning to since they have to interpret a pile of uncontrolled reports, where all the possible variables are confused and with unknown biases.
No malice involved, just incompetence, Dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias.
EDIT: I would add that, as some point, when selling a product, incompetence and apathy are hard to distinguish from actual malice. I don't think that there's any malice involved, but that's because I know Dave.
Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.
I also don't think you can infer qualities of testers based on whether or not they were banished or not, or disgusted or not, from the previous playtests. Those kinds of things involve personalities in a way too orthogonal from actual testing skill to interpret meaningfully.
But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic? It requires a level of test plan design skill I don't think DP9 has. It also requires testers able to give results to statistical significance in a timely manner that I don't think is possible given the small tester pool. I think that sort of approach is doomed to its own issues, granted different than the ones of the current approach.
Ok, I really, really don't have time to talk about that right now. If all goes well, I'll have some time next week. Simply put: forget statistical significance, there's no way to get a sample large enough. You can still control for some variables by fixing them (e.g. give out specific lists to test and compare). You can compensate for the testers biases by telling them what the result should be. The test will still be biased, but you will know the bias.
Being able to come up with a test plan, to figure out what need to be tested, how, and in which order are fundamental skills of game design. If it's out of reach of DP9, so is game design. That does not mean that they have to do it like I would. I know how to design and test systems in general, not games. It does mean that they have to be able to do it, that they have to look at the results after publication and adjust their procedures as needed. They are not even doing that.
MrThud wrote: Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.
I also don't think you can infer qualities of testers based on whether or not they were banished or not, or disgusted or not, from the previous playtests. Those kinds of things involve personalities in a way too orthogonal from actual testing skill to interpret meaningfully.
But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic? It requires a level of test plan design skill I don't think DP9 has. It also requires testers able to give results to statistical significance in a timely manner that I don't think is possible given the small tester pool. I think that sort of approach is doomed to its own issues, granted different than the ones of the current approach.
It also helps if the person in charge of testing isn't heavily invested in the project he is leading to lessen bias which wasn't unfortunately the case with the Paxton Blood Debt release... hence all the free stuff they get for no cost. If I ever play a Paxton army, I'll ask my opponent to spot me 10% more points because that is about how much roughly they're undercosted for all the hidden stat boosts and special rules (and that doesn't get into the stuff like cheaper airstrikes that have no TV cost or counterbalance). More recently with the alpha, that trend seems to be continuing. In most games, a weapon that is by all accounts better on a faster, more accurate, tougher chassis costs more than the same one on a crappier chassis. In HG, the only variable is it paradoxically costs less for one faction because they make alot of them in the defunct RPG fluff. WTF??? One thing HG doesn't do (but strangely 40k got right) is that massed fire of an upgraded weapon should cost more. It's not as much of an issue in HG as models fire on models instead of units on units but weapon availability still matters. If you like a particular weapon (like HBzk), then the ability to get 3 in one squad without paying an upgraded model tax associated with a squad that only gets 1/squad max should increase the cost of the weapon itself. 40k does that with Heavy Weapons in devastator squads where you can buy 4 of 5 models with big guns compared with 1/5 in tactical squads (but at a cheaper cost). It isn't perfect but it at least shows though put into the process instead of first draft brainstorming at best and biased wishlisting at worst.
MrThud wrote: Okay, well, I wasn't involved in previous tests so I don't think you can infer any particular support for DP9's policies from me participating in this one. I generally find DP9 to be overly opaque and unaccountable.
Well, to put things in perspective, this is DP9's first ever open playtest. Imagine how opaque and unaccountable they were when it was only private testing...
But really, the command driven approach that's being suggested, where the designer puts every line item in the rules to the test, with testers giving feedback and then the designer collating all those results to come to a decision, is it realistic?
It's actually a more realistic approach than the one DP9 has been using so far, and a lot more efficient use of tester time, too.
In an ideal situation, testers should be able to answer with just "yes/no" (Ie. "Does item X do what it's supposed to do, yes/no ?")
To achieve this, the designer must first explain what item X is supposed to do to the testers. Then the testers start testing item X, and report whether item X does what it's supposed to do. Once this is done, another item can be tested, and so on...
That's a tedious process, but it works, and no one ever said testing was supposed to be fun.
On the other hand, letting the testers in the dark, without any clear frame or direction, is the best way to have them produce only random, scattered feedback with a very high noise to signal ratio, that the designer can read as he sees fit. Exactly how DP9 wants things...
To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.
So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.
I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.
Vertrucio wrote: To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.
So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.
I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.
I think you are mistaking the consequences (lots of whining) with the cause (DP9's crippling incompetence in project and playtest management).
Don't worry though, I doubt this thread is going to prevent anyone interested over the DP9 boards to "do good". None one of us complainers here can rival DP9 in that aspect...
I also suggest you avoid threads dedicated to DP9 and PB products, if you have issues with generous amounts of "whining".
HudsonD wrote:Look, this isn't about you, and you seem to have forgotten the purpose of this thread.
You've been consistenly misreading or downright ignoring whole paragraphs, posts and even pages. This thread is intended to list the major, crippling issues affecting DP9, and instead you've decided to use it as your personal tribune to praise the company and yourself !
Now, there's nothing wrong with self-promotion, as long as it's clearly labelled as such. That's the difference between "this company is awesome (and I work for them) !" and "this company is awesome". The former is called sharing your enthusiasm, the later is called lying by omission if you happen to actually work for said company.
In light of the above, I also note you chose to speak about yourself, and not about the consensus on the playtest's disastrous state...
This thread was intended to focus on people who weren't involved with DP9 in the first place.
HudsonD wrote:
Vertrucio wrote: To be frank, there's been a bit too much doomsaying and whining about the test.
So much so that it just seems more like the want to whine, rather than problems with the test itself.
I don't even have a stake in this since I don't play or care to play HG, and I even agree that the test sounds like it has severe issues. Even so, the doomsaying and whining is getting so out of hand it's drowning out any attempts to do good with what's there.
I think you are mistaking the consequences (lots of whining) with the cause (DP9's crippling incompetence in project and playtest management).
Don't worry though, I doubt this thread is going to prevent anyone interested over the DP9 boards to "do good". None one of us complainers here can rival DP9 in that aspect...
I also suggest you avoid threads dedicated to DP9 and PB products, if you have issues with generous amounts of "whining".
Vertrucio wrote:And sometimes you can overdo that "consequence" like your overuse of quotation marks.
I even agree with your assessment of terrible management, and have so for a long time.
But, there comes a point where you're beating a dead horse. We get it, things are bad. Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.
HudsonD wrote:
Vertrucio wrote: Time to either move on, or go fix the problem yourself.
Well, what would you suggest for the latter ? I'm all ears.
He just suggested it. Move on, or fix the problem yourself. You're one of the few gentlemen who seems to believe he could test the game properly, so why not get a group together and work it over and play the game and post your findings? Not just statistics, but actually playing the game.
This is what I have been saying to you on many occasions.
I've tried burying the hatchet with you before, HudsonD, but after a year of being resigned from the company, you're still at it.
Now, you say I'm here to make it a personal tribune. Actually, I have tried to avoid arguments simply by adding links to the thread to keep others informed of what is going on elsewhere. It was only when you directly told me I was being unethical that I got angry.
To warboss, thank you for the congratulations. As for the Alpha, I don't have any control in it. If you desire to post in that board and try to help fix the problems, HudsonD, do so.
Basically that was my suggestion, form your own group of testers and coordinate to give the kind of feedback that you want dp9 to work from. Flood their forums with your playtest reports.
If that doesn't work and you still want to play the game, write your own version of the rules.
Otherwise, you just have to let it go. Let the test go on however it will and either try the final product, or leave the game entirely. Shelve your miniatures, or sell them.
Because if you're at the point where you're filling an entire topic with angry posts and spending so much time and effort arguing about how bad things are, at that point you're only hurting yourself. Your time would be better spent on other games having fun, or fixing the game that you still want to play.
Ah, I think you're misunderstanding where I stand, and what are my goals.
I've been involved in plenty of DP9 playtests, on both sides of the curtain, and there's my name in the field manual, both versions, as well as in the Nucoal book. I resigned during the late development of the Southern book, which is why my name isn't there (sorry southern players, I tried !). I have formal training and experience as a project manager. I do think I have a fair idea of how things work in a DP9 project...
When I say the playtest process is specifically designed to shield the designer from feedback, that's not said in anger or in defiance, or even with malice, that's simply experience talking. Since the current designer is brand-new, I, among others, spent a decent amount of time explaining to him proper playtest procedures. The results could be politely summed up as "zip", but at least we can say we did our duty, and gave it a chance (a lot more than one chance, actually).
Now, as for my goals, they are two-folds. First, to answer the OP's "why do you not play Heavy Gear ?". This can easily be shortened as "DP9 happened", or to use a few more words, that they do have a rare talent to turn gold into lead. I won't repeat all the examples of mismanagement and stubborn resistance to improvement they've displayed in the recent years, there's already 16 pages of it.
Secondly, following the above, this thread is, and should remain a warning beacon for the people that have just discovered about Heavy Gear, but don't know yet about its troubled history. They deserve to be warned.
Ironically, if it weren't for the occasional white knight that walks in and tries to "set things straight", this thread would have gone quiet a while ago...
So, it's nice to know some things just don't ever change.
Over at DP9, Robert has posted an announcement for their new pie in the sky proyect: a hopper model, the first in a new whole line of them I guess. You would see there are no replies to that post.
But there were. Two, in fact, one mine and one from Robock (...I think). I said that it was too expensive for me, and that even though I could not benefit from them (as buying from the USA/Canada right now is too expensive), the price reduction on the bundles was a good idea. Oh, and I also said that the peg was waaay too low. Robocks' was similar I think (EDIT: No, I remember now: he didn't know if he would ever want more than one because the Pod has yet to release the north book, I think). Both got deleted in a matter of minutes.
Then I posted again, asking what was so offensive about my post to have it deleted. This one got deleted too, and I got a PM from Robert, basically telling me that if I had nothing good to say about their prices I'd better say nothing. And that they didn't manufacture from China as many others, so that was why their prices are "a bit more expensive".
For starters, none of the companies I compared DP9's prices (all 15mm instead of 12, BTW) manufacture from China. All of them manufacture themselves. Also, it's not "a bit" more expensive. We're talking about twice or even 4 times as expensive here. So there.
If so, it appears I missed it as it is now locked. If I actually bothered to check the dp9 forum more frequently, I'd have posted a question about the status of the just a "few more weeks" in February posted status of the January Northern PDF release that is MIA in late April.
If so, it appears I missed it as it is now locked. If I actually bothered to check the dp9 forum more frequently, I'd have posted a question about the status of the just a "few more weeks" in February posted status of the January Northern PDF release that is MIA in late April.
Yep, that one. And yes, now it's locked. Funny that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doc1234 wrote: The dragonflys only £2 cheaper than the GZG equivalent in 15mm to be fair.
Can't see the price in pounds of the other one, but in euros the Dragonfly is almost 20, disregarding of course shipping, customs and the like. The GZG one is 15mm (so bigger), 12 pounds (so about 14,63 euros), and shipped from the UK (which is amazingly cheaper from this side). That said, even being about 25% more expensive, it's still better comparative value than most DP9 stuff. The GZG one is also all metal instead of resin.
Obviously, the above doesn't take the bulk discount, individual aesthetic preference, model size, etc into consideration but the base price is of the dragonfly is 40% more for a model whose scale is 20% smaller. It is priced above average but so is the entirety of the DP9 resin range.
I was ignoring postage, just looking at the price of the model. The GZG VTOL is £12, the DP9 one converted at current rate according to google from Canadian Dollars to Pounds comes out at £14.55. Resin vs Metal argument is...something, and more down to personal taste for many.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well I buggered that formatting...
In any case, the resin prices for DP9 have always been aggressive. I basically paid for most of my gears when I sold off my southern resin tanks and striders in a big lot I picked up when I gave DP9 their last chance with the Field Manual.
Albertorius, Dave wasn't involved in the northern book just as an FYI. His creative debut is nublitz.
As to DP9's resin prices... actually my point is that nowadays resin is actually cheaper than metal, and given that GZG's mini was metal, bigger and cheaper... well ^_^
Robert just posted another thread and I asked about the northern pdf. Just in case the same thing happens and the thread gets needlessly pruned and locked, my post is quoted below.
Any update on the Northern PDF? The VTOL stuff is nice and the updates to the alpha have been steady but we haven't heard anything from you about the northern release since you announced it as a January release back in December and it is almost May. My northern model construction and purchases have been on hold now for almost 6 months as I don't want loadouts to get invalidated right away.
Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed). I feel like they've been complicated enough to pretty much blow that out of the water but I'll admit that I haven't played the most recent 3 versions of the rules (or even downloaded the last one). That design idea wouldn't have worked IMO anyways with the current all metal prices needed to fill out the armies to that point and above unless much cheaper plastic starters became a reality. With the introduction of the VTOLs recently, I don't think more and cheaper is the direction they've chosen to head.
Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed). I feel like they've been complicated enough to pretty much blow that out of the water but I'll admit that I haven't played the most recent 3 versions of the rules (or even downloaded the last one). That design idea wouldn't have worked IMO anyways with the current all metal prices needed to fill out the armies to that point and above unless much cheaper plastic starters became a reality. With the introduction of the VTOLs recently, I don't think more and cheaper is the direction they've chosen to head.
I think I've heard those numbers, but I feel there's an unstated provision that units like the VTOLs, larger tanks, etc. are going to take up more than that. Maybe 20 'actions' per side in an hour is possible, albeit still requiring players that know the rules very well.
Same here. I was both publicly and privately optimistic this time last year in regards to the hobby. I was on double secret probation for the proof of concept rules (not sure what to call that ruleset/work now that this is the "alpha") as well as working on Blitz tweaks on my blog publicly. I just finished pledging despite my trepidation for the Robotech KS with its guarantees of 98% of the work being done and Palladium being hands off on the project, neither of which was true. I'll admit that I haven't followed the alpha rules after seeing how bad the army lists were but alot of the initial enthusiasm is gone, especially seeing as how my go-to backup hobby project for the winter (my northern army in case Palladium screwed up the Dec robotech release) has been on hold for the entire season due to a lack of published rules. I haven't even played a game of HG since around October and I actually finally have an opponent for the game to play against for the first time since getting back into the game a few years ago. The heavy gear video game crowdfunding effort hadn't failed spectacularly twice in a row yet this time last year and we were still occasionally seeing some new art back then to wet our appetites. At least X-wing didn't let me down and has been consistently releasing nice stuff (albeit it at a slow pace). I'm even back to finishing off some left over 40k figs including stripping/repainting some that were previously done.
For the most part, I'm taking a hands off wait and see approach to the nublitz rules. I don't plan on buying the beta rules unless they're a dirt cheap (read $5 or less) or preferably free PDF and instead I'll likely just play current blitz every few months with a few tweaks (like trying the whole no speed band dice nublitz rule with blitz... your movement speed only counts for your own activation and then you drop back to combat speed). I don't think they'll go with free beta rules pdfs though but instead charge full PDF prices. I do hope AT A MINIMUM that they follow the FFG route and credit people who buy the beta pdf 100% of the funds towards the final version's purchase (your $20 beta rules pdf purchase gets you $20 credit off of the final pdf price a year later).
warboss wrote: Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed).
The original 'goal' was 30 vs. 30 in 3-4 hours, with 20 v 20 in 2-3 hours a reasonable compromise. Initial testing showed that 15v15 in 2-3 hours was a better 'feel', not sacrificing too much grit but also allowing some simplifications. However, those were games intended to be run very 'objective light', so YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Balance wrote: I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.
Thanks for the clarification, responsible party. I was getting it confused with the other big robot anime minis game that was supposed to occupy my hobby time this year.
Balance wrote: I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.
I think you raised some very valid points in your question of where the ruleset revamp stands, which have not by any means all been addressed, no matter what wishful thinking in the opposite direction might lead someone to believe.
You posted about viable concerns, not simply a bunch of venomous negativity. Sure, it wasn't an essentially useless glowing endorsement, but you also offered ideas on how to constructively proceed into the Beta phase.
warboss wrote: Well, we have a response and a new delivery date to miss. That at least is progress. And, for Smilodon in case he reads this, a name! Lion's Wrath.
warboss wrote: Just some backstory, the original version of these rules were supposed to allow play of 20 on 20 in about an hour IIRC (the responsible party can feel free to correct me if needed).
The original 'goal' was 30 vs. 30 in 3-4 hours, with 20 v 20 in 2-3 hours a reasonable compromise. Initial testing showed that 15v15 in 2-3 hours was a better 'feel', not sacrificing too much grit but also allowing some simplifications. However, those were games intended to be run very 'objective light', so YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Balance wrote: I'm obviously a little disillusioned with things.
I hear there's a support group forming :(
I think 15vs15 is a good sweet spot anyway. Even when you look at, say 40k, sure more models are on the table, but how many are moved and fired individually? It's also about 3 squads, which is a nice mix of choices without being able to bring everything.
Anyway, as I wasn't actually playtesting, just kibitzing from the sidelines, I figured I wasn't really helping, so just backed away, that and certain directions being taken just made me lose faith that the right decisions were going to be made, and that the final product was going to be any better than field manual quality. (Which while better than its predecessors was still an ugly mess of rules)
I actually didn't mind the idea of adding VTOLs back before nublitz, as I thought it made more sense than trying to get people to buy some new faction that they couldn't use with their existing models. But I would've prefered that nublitz get to a nice and finished state first.
Thanks to Infinity, it has been significantly longer than 5 months for me.
I'm not kidding. The first time I tried to quit HG (LnL), the closest thing to a common sci-fi game based on range was 40K. That ended pulling me back when HG looked slightly more ranged than 40K again (~Field Manual). With Infinity, I have a sci-fi game based on range and reactions, and good rules and not-completely-off balance. The temptation to play HG is completely gone.
mrondeau wrote: [...] the closest thing to a common sci-fi game based on range was [...]
Which I think could easily be one of the most frustrating things about HG and the Pod.
Just looking at the numbers for the poll here, and the level of response to alternative fan rulesets tried for HG in the past (at least 5 that I know of offhand, one of which got turned into the Alpha), I'm not even sure a company with a proven track record could create a new title for the same niche without seeing it quickly fail. I have no idea if this has to do with the mindset of players looking for that type of game, the apparently quite small interest group, or some other factor. Plus obviously that the Pod is almost always doing their very best to try and turn HG into something else entirely, until the inevitable "vision" change every few years, all the while utterly ignoring the issues they caused along the way. All that just doesn't provide a very good benchmark to judge anything else against really.
I know for myself personally that once I got fed up with Battletech's endless power creep and complexity cycle there was not another sci-fi game that caught my eye. And even if anyone local played something like Infinity or 40K I would have zero interest in it. I did play some form of 40k a few times back in the early 90s, but swords or melee weapons, while sometimes fitting into the Cyberpunk genre, are a total turnoff for me in a mechanized battlefield wargame.
Of course, if I merely wanted to game with historical or contemporary models there are already plenty of rulesets out there. But not, unfortunately, one comparable to the reasonably realistic HG setting.
warboss wrote: Hello, my name is Warboss and it has been five months since my last Blitz game...
I'm reasonably sure my last session with HGB! was a Paxton test game on VASSAL against either you or Beerninja before he deployed. My interest has waned considerably since then to say the least.
I'm pretty sure my last game was during the FiF playtest...
EDIT: My last Blitz game, that is. I've played 2nd edition some times since. And the Alpha... well, some of the attitudes during this alpha kinda sucked off my interest to play, and I ended learning FoW instead (of course, the fact that I could buy a whole FoW army for the cost of like, a squadron and a half of gears, did help).
mrondeau wrote: With Infinity, I have a sci-fi game based on range and reactions, and good rules and not-completely-off balance.
I'm generally a fan of Infinity, and think the ARO mechanic is mostly(*) positive, but it still doesn't scratch the same itch. I'd like a slightly simpler Infinity for giant robots, that might happen to have big tanks, that would meet that mecha need myself.
I'd like for Infinity to have unit names that don't require me to have a Google Translate window open to use (as well as occasionally the rules themselves in the older versions!).
Smilodon_UP wrote: Just looking at the numbers for the poll here, and the level of response to alternative fan rulesets tried for HG in the past (at least 5 that I know of offhand, one of which got turned into the Alpha), I'm not even sure a company with a proven track record could create a new title for the same niche without seeing it quickly fail. I have no idea if this has to do with the mindset of players looking for that type of game, the apparently quite small interest group, or some other factor.
Mecha-as-the-focus is in general a more niche group than people + machines; you attract a broader audience when you have identifiable people plus iconic machines, such as Warmachine, 40k or Infinity provides. When you're primarily focusing on giant robots, you don't get power armor, catgirls or other elements that help broaden your appeal - that's part of the reason why 28mm is popular, you have a fairly broad market to draw upon, whereas 15mm and below tends to focus on either armies as whole -or- machines only, which narrows the fanbase. That's why Heavy Gear, Dropzone Commander, Robotech Tactics and Battletech will tend to struggle to maintain relevance year over year; the focus is too narrow. RTT and BT are helped significantly by both the nostalgia factor and the fact that they have or were multi channel products. HG was multi-channel, but the video games and TV series had narrow adoption, limiting it's ability to draw upon that already 'pollinated' field. Robotech was a major cartoon in the 80s, while BT spawned a very successful series of VGs - both gives them a ready-made population to sell to. X-Wing minis is another example of a product that needed the cross-pollination to really hit it big, and they did so in spades. So from that perspective, HG never really had a change to be viable, especially once they let the RPG crowd influence (perhaps unduly) the product for the miniatures channel.
I think a new company could probably find a niche in the market, though it will be difficult. They would need to cross multiple 'giant robot' types, to try to draw upon as many different themes as possible. 'Real Robot' can be a theme, sure - but it should be one of several, to appeal to different audiences. It would need to be somewhat similar to what was tried with Monsterpocalypse, by bringing multiple elements into a single product. And the focus would need to be on smaller gameplay, more similar to the Gruntz model, which focuses on 5-6 models per 'faction' to start and then expand from there. But you wouldn't base the entire theme around infantry + vehicles in 15mm - that simply doesn't give you enough room to maneuver.
HG's origin as an RPG poisoned it's ability to be an effective miniatures game. The intentional 'sameness' of the models - which makes sense in a hard-ish RPG - makes creating faction identity harder, which is a very valuable asset when you're talking wargames. So while new rules can 'help' HG restart, in the sense that it can lower the barriers to entry, the point that continues to be missed is that without adding new giant robots, which are what drives new sales, you probably won't be viable. I hope they prove me wrong, but adding new APCs and VTOLs in a game that stars giant robots is pretty much the definition of missing the forest for the trees.
IceRaptor wrote: HG's origin as an RPG poisoned it's ability to be an effective miniatures game. The intentional 'sameness' of the models - which makes sense in a hard-ish RPG - makes creating faction identity harder, which is a very valuable asset when you're talking wargames. So while new rules can 'help' HG restart, in the sense that it can lower the barriers to entry, the point that continues to be missed is that without adding new giant robots, which are what drives new sales, you probably won't be viable. I hope they prove me wrong, but adding new APCs and VTOLs in a game that stars giant robots is pretty much the definition of missing the forest for the trees.
I feel like Dave had some good ideas for this: some of the earliest stuff I heard for what became the Alpha was to try and break up the 'North vs. South' by focusing more on Northern GP vs. Southern Paratrooper. I still think this would be a good idea.
As to the need to keep adding more Gears, I'm not so sure. A lot of people get drawn to the game because of the tank designs. Partially it may be the scale: a Gear looks like a large-ish Space Marine in many ways, while the tanks are distinctive. And the new Peace River APC sculpt replaced an older design that was really disliked.
The VTOLs are an interesting change and were something of a surprise to me. I like the concept, although my concern is it will follow the established wargame premise that every faction gets one (Or at least the limited list of factions as of the Alpha). Adding them int he Alpha means that they are part of the core rules, not an ugly add-on, which I like.
That's the funny thing. I want to like the Alpha. I have no issues with Dave as a person, although I do feel he is not aware of the larger issues.
Balance wrote: As to the need to keep adding more Gears, I'm not so sure. A lot of people get drawn to the game because of the tank designs. Partially it may be the scale: a Gear looks like a large-ish Space Marine in many ways, while the tanks are distinctive. And the new Peace River APC sculpt replaced an older design that was really disliked.
I'm not saying that have no place - simply that they are best thought of as accents, and should be released as such. A tank like an Aller is a centerpiece, sure - but an APC like the hoplite has a horrible cost/utility ratio and doesn't have as much 'wow' factor as the new Gears for Paxton would have. I think it would have been 'better' to have spent the money on a single new Gear, rather than a resculpt of an APC, because the Gears are the star and the APC isn't. IMO.
heh one of the things that has kept me from playing Infinity is the overly nutty range of figures. Werewolves wearing kilts?
(Though fairly recently Heavy Gear added tanks with arms, so I'm not sure I should count that anymore...)
I'll repost here my thoughts about the hoppers rules, in case they also get deleted for being overly negative:
Funny things I've noticed about the hoppers and their payload, comparing them with the original ones:
1) Firstly... they look very similar. Like very, very similar. Which is funny, because they were quite different originally.
2) The weapons payload seem... different, to say something. For starters, the ACs have gone waay up, seeing as the Dragonfly originally had a MAC and the Varis a LAC. The Dragonfly has also lost its MG, for some reason, but has kept its SAM and ATM (only the SAM is now light instead of medium, don't know why). All in all, the Dragonfly had a very multirole weapon mix, did a bit of everything and even could shoot at enemy fighters and the like (but it wasn't one, let's keep that in mind). And then there's the Varis, which has gone from a LAC+AGM weapons combo to HAC+LSAM+LATM. Which makes me go... huh, holy upgunning, Batman.
3) Then there's the rest of the stats. From the books I have, the Dragonfly was a beast, all in all. Same Armor as the Varis (10), but almost double the speed (7/13 instead of 4/8), better sensors, better comms (+1 instead of +0 in both counts, although with shorter range), same Acc bonus (+2! in both cases! whoah), and waaaaay more menuverable than the Varis (+1 vs. -2, that's gotta hurt). Now we go to the current stats and... theyre exactly the same. For some reason. Same armor, speed, gunnery, pilot... they're basically the same frakking hopper. Oh, well, the Dragonfly has EW 5+ and ECM +1d6. Again, just because (it certainly didn't have anything like that before, but hey, Paxton! Only it should be Paxton/North).
4) They also have Fragile: Move. Which is really weird, you know, because they are not helicopters. That's the whole point of hoppers, FFS. They are like helis, but without fragile movement systems! Only now they aren't, because....?
5) The hover mode weird me out, big time. IMHO, it doesn't map out in any form the way hoppers/helis work.
So yeah, not really a fan, all told. And even less of a fan of the way the stats are interchangeable between both hoppers. Why the hell? Didn't you want to make the different factions different by making their stuff more distinctive? If so, hey, good job! You guys took two completely different vehicles that worked completely different, and cloned them between factions >_>
Sorry to be all negative about them, but this is the time to get them right, and really, I think they need a lot of work.
Out of curiosity, I noticed that Robert mentioned doing the layout himself. Is that something he used to do in the 1990s? Didn't Mason used to do that kind of stuff previously? If so, I guess now that the rpg is its own thing he doesn't have the time or inclination to work on the tabletop side of the IP and I can't say that I blame him if it is the case.
warboss wrote: Out of curiosity, I noticed that Robert mentioned doing the layout himself. Is that something he used to do in the 1990s? Didn't Mason used to do that kind of stuff previously? If so, I guess now that the rpg is its own thing he doesn't have the time or inclination to work on the tabletop side of the IP and I can't say that I blame him if it is the case.
IIRC, back in the 90s Robert was only the PR guy, so I don't think so. Back around that time the Pod was the real Pod, and had a lot of talents, so I don't really think he did anything in that venues.
As to Mason, I can't say I blame him either. But it will certainly impact on the quality of the HGB books.
That's how I understand it. The PDF field guides are definitely being produced on limited resources. I am hopeful that the Alpha will get layer out by someone with more experience. The last PDF is usable, but very plain... There's also room to improve usability from the Perfect Storm books, I think.
Given the last two books, I would be really surprised if anyone else ended up doing the v5 Rules book(s) for Gencon or etc.
Then again if a Beta booklet is already being worked up, there might just be time before Gencon to get it done.
Although, that could be a reason the North PDF has lingered in production over a month plus given how Blood Debt got hammered out in only a few weeks - kind of hard to do two projects at once.
The only other thing I can think of to hold up the works so badly is that significant changes are being inflicted, or that beyond the few samples the testers got shown there isn't much any art.
Although, lack of art didn't stop Blood Debt from getting published, so I guess we're back to changes.
/shrug I do know though that at least one of the devs that was only involved with creating source material had questions as to how things eventually turned out.
But yeah, what is left of the Pod has to be running purely on fumes. Most people aren't going to work up art or material just for products, and to be fair, I would be doubtful the Pod is Robert's full time employment.
@Balance: I actually like the stripped down versions of the PDF and wish that DP9 had done them for TPS and FIF as a download option for older devices. I don't have a no name knock of tablet or phone but I don't have a top of the line model either (kindle Fire HD)... and it stutters on the PDFs when I change pages at a quick pace. Obviously the Blood Debt PDF is a different story as it was redundant before it was announced effectively and produced on a shoe string budget (don't get me started on the "balance" of its entries!). Even if the Northern pdf is even less fancy (like using only existing art) for the initial release with newer art (if any) added in later as an updated version, I'd prefer that to waiting additional weeks or more likely months.
@Smilodon: I agree that likely at this point the beta PDF creation is the top priority and the northern PDF is a "when I get the chance" type of thing. Maybe the sales of the paxton release were so poor to as not even cover production costs and make the type of project worthwhile? I have no idea but they seem to be making progress on getting the beta out as well as new models that are compliant or soon will be in the beta. At this point, Robert is no longer is back to work at his business so the months of mourning isn't the issue anymore. It could just be that supporting the last edition of blitz with a whimper (let alone a last hurrah) isn't high on the list of things to do.
I know I strongly suggested the North and PRDF get some updates, even if in PDF, because I feel it is the customer-friendly way to close out an edition. Would've liked to see CEF and the Colonies get the same treatment, but they're not nearly as bad off as the North, which has been a struggle since L&L (if not before) because the Northern leagues don't have a lot of 'positive' rules to theme around (WFPA excepted).
Smilodon_UP wrote:Most people aren't going to work up art or material just for products, and to be fair, I would be doubtful the Pod is Robert's full time employment.
That last part would surprise me but I'm pretty far out of the loop. I just gnash my teeth and wail in my sackcloth barely within earshot of the inner circle.
Balance wrote:I know I strongly suggested the North and PRDF get some updates, even if in PDF, because I feel it is the customer-friendly way to close out an edition. Would've liked to see CEF and the Colonies get the same treatment, but they're not nearly as bad off as the North, which has been a struggle since L&L (if not before) because the Northern leagues don't have a lot of 'positive' rules to theme around (WFPA excepted).
Strange... the common "complaint" seems to be that CEF and Colonies were less viable than the north (even when you took away MBzk spam). Did the pretty significant TV reductions they got fix that significantly?
Balance wrote: I feel it is the customer-friendly way to close out an edition. [..] the Northern leagues don't have a lot of 'positive' rules to theme around (WFPA excepted).
Aside from trying to assign models in a more fluffy manner, yes, not really. But it seems like the Pod's "go-to" solution in that case is always the addition of more special rules for a primary faction and/or sub-faction. I was able to kibosh a few or otherwise stall long enough to kill several ideas, but most took on a life of their own once proposed, as per usual, with no recourse but to try and make them work reasonably well without being an "I win" addition.
warboss wrote: Strange... the common "complaint" seems to be that CEF and Colonies were less viable than the north (even when you took away MBZK spam). Did the pretty significant TV reductions they got fix that significantly?
I was surprised that anyone even responded to the FSG release thread after so long. I did a few formatting nudges here and there after all that GU material got tacked on after the Medical units but didn't actually do any cost checking of the CEF or Colonial models so I honestly don't know if it was calculated or arbitrary.
And the Pod most assuredly missed getting some badly needed income by releasing nothing through the last two sales, Xmas and March, beyond some WIP shots.
It's all but impossible to see right off what a house of cards these field guides are in actuality. Even with North having been my third project, and being the poor slob writing/editing it into a workable whole, it's hard to notice all the little things that creep in unless somebody questions them and gets answered. Which is not on the testers, but on the Pod, for demanding so much legacy concepts get carried over while still trying to make a "new" product. It's basically an unrealizable goal. Sometimes it seemed more like the testers were just there to rubber-stamp everything, yet at the same time ignore the obviously broken or completely mistaken concepts the management folks send out with each project. TPTB just didn't always "get it" about the intricacy of the format they created, as their ideas were largely focused on only one or a few models and combat groups at a time without looking at things like the chain reaction inserting [X] would cause to all the swap costs they somehow expect to stay averaged and relatively legal. Or that adding back a particular loadout would completely negate the point of trying to differentiate the combat groups in the first place.
Legacy is important, but really only so that folks aren't out $$$ on things they've previously purchased. At some point there has to be a break from the previous material for the sake of internal coherency. And it's quite strange they so stubbornly clung to this idea for so long given how badly that all got butchered in the Alpha lists of the v5 rules. The only thing I think they did right was lose the convoluted model/variant/loadout swaps that took so much effort to try and get working together, which was accomplished by going an utterly bland route.
On another note, we'll likely never know all the particulars of the falling-out the production folks had in the Spring of last year after FiF's release that led to there being no production staff and almost no developers.
On another note, we'll likely never know all the particulars of the falling-out the production folks had in the Spring of last year after FiF's release that led to there being no production staff and almost no developers.
Production staff falling out? I never heard about that. Who is even considered production staff? Xactoboy/Phil, Mason, and Dave are the only two that come to mind with everyone else being a developer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: Legacy is important, but really only so that folks aren't out $$$ on things they've previously purchased. At some point there has to be a break from the previous material for the sake of internal coherency.
I'll fully admit that it is a minefield and I definitely don't think they've cleared the right path just yet. I expected some model variants to become useless but not that entire chassis' would disappear from my list and only half the figs I own would be usable in an army with the "first draft" of the FIF rules... and I didn't even ultimately have it the worst. I'm not kidding when I say that I've had more invalidated in my 40 gear southern army than with the past 5 warhammer 40k army releases combined (with a total of more than 400 fig in them).
warboss wrote: Production staff falling out? I never heard about that. Who is even considered production staff? Xactoboy/Phil, Mason, and Dave are the only two that come to mind with everyone else being a developer.
Dunno. I've only heard things, never talked directly with any of those folks. But from the looks of things now there is no production staff, or staff period really. All you ever hear about is just Robert, Dave, and a few on commission folks for sculpts, art, and 3D modeling.
Jason (Autel), the line editor after J. Buckmaster, and Greg (Mason), the art & layout guy, had no part in either Blood Debt or Lion's Wrath. They've moved on to Arkrite.
Daniel Hinds-Bond, "007design", the layout guy for ODBD, was already not in the credits for TPS.
Gareth Lazelle and Nick Pilon were editors for L&L.
James Paquette is noted as a full time Podder and assistant layout in GU5 after joining in GU4, but nowhere else I've seen since.
Jacinthe Boisvert-Gauthier is noted as a Pod intern and assistant layout in GU6 (the HG Assault promo issue), but not credited in any of the main books.
Saleem was also the only dev to have any part in the last two field guides beyond source material. Brad Bellows, "Gambit," was involved with FiF, and Michael Onsrud was a dev for TPS and FiF. I also see a Dan Strother listed as a dev in FiF, but anything I ever sent up the line came back answered by Gambit.
The last I saw Paul Nemeth, "Attila of Terra" as contributor or adviser to anything was the WfTN books. Doc & Kris were the advisers for ODBD, which seems the last time anybody contributed anything towards military aspects.
Paul Workoff, "EvilMonkey," was the guy doing terrain and whatnot for the GU emagazines, and last active on the forums in December.
While apparently not as many folks as during the 90s when the Pod started up, it's still a pretty significant number to no longer have working on anything when even a year ago many were. Not to mention that it doesn't look good, at all, when folks ask these kind of questions.
I also saw the name Jason English listed as a writer for the 1e Equipment catalog, who may or may not be "Banzai" on the forums. Not sure.
Smilodon_UP wrote: Legacy is important, but really only so that folks aren't out $$$ on things they've previously purchased. At some point there has to be a break from the previous material for the sake of internal coherency.
I'll fully admit that it is a minefield and I definitely don't think they've cleared the right path just yet. I expected some model variants to become useless but not that entire chassis' would disappear
Yeah, there is likely to be some of that whenever North gets released and I'm not looking forward to it because I will still share some blame even without having been a dev. Hopefully a lot less, ideally none, but it simply isn't possible to catch everything just because of how open force construction got with L&L being appended in Gear-Up, subsequent books, the occasional errata page, internal memos devoured by weasels, and etc while at the same time trying to implement the field guide format.
If their production staff has been lessened as you said, another interesting tidbit will be to see who is working the booth at gencon. I believe Balance said he wasn't able to attend this year from a thread months ago and I'm not sure if IceRaptor will be either. If Mason and Jason (lol, they sound like Double Dragon twins!) go, they may or may not share the same booth since they'd likely be focused on a related but not intrinsic to DP9 product. I'm not sure if it was Ghostrider or Paradox (or someone else?) but IIRC one pulled some serious hours at the booth but it didn't sound like they'd be doing the same again.
Maybe as a newly minted game writer, our BrandonKF will make his gencon debut!??! Trust me, Brandon, pressing the flesh with the best and worst of your fellow gamers at the biggest RPG con is a life altering experience.
In a nod to the original content of this thread, another decisive display of leadership;
Sweet but where does the sensor boom go? - Saleem
Sensor Boom was not on the artwork and should not have been on the datacard, I'm not sure how it got there and it will be removed on the next update of the Blood Debt Peace River Army List ebook and new edition rules, case closed. - Robert
Odd, my PRDF test documents from as far back as March 2013 show for the Greyhound "AUX; BACKUP COMMS, ECM 3, ECCM 3, SATELLITE UPLINK, SENSOR BOOM" and aside from BU Comms & Sensor Boom being on the wrong line they are present.
The Greyhound preview image I notice only dates back to May, 2013 on my PC. But it wouldn't be the first, nor likely to be the last, time an image or physical sculpt doesn't match the stat card.
So what is even the big deal to go all executive fiat over, amusingly enough because the machine pistol is an acceptable addition.
I guess the artist never got clued in on the datacards though, so now Blood Debt has to get yet another "update" to cover the Pod's ass because somebody has their head stuck in the sand again.
I notice in the last Blood Debt update I just downloaded, apparently only to put in the new Hoplite sculpt, there is still no art for the Bison (originally named the Jackal) Tankstrider.
IME that would have been more of an attention and $$$ getter than the APC revamp, and why bother to redraw the Cata yet not do up a prototype sometime over the past year?
Because in comparison the Drake, Salamander, Barnaby, Fer De Lance, and Pack Lizard platoon all came out in a relatively short time-span, along with other releases.
"..still a lot of work to do before it comes out later in May."
"..still a few weeks of work left on it."
Wonder if this new "Spring" promotion will actually see the Northern ebook come out, or if it'll be one more missed opportunity for revenue beyond serving as another attempted fire sale. I found the "to get players into Heavy Gear Blitz" bit highly amusing.
Yeah, the "case closed" part was perhaps a tad too much. Eh, like you said, it won't be the first time something didn't match up visually with the rules. The late may/still a few weeks duo of comments reinforces the above that the project just doesn't seem like a priority for the pod even now months later when Robert has returned. It's a quick PDF that, if it resembles the Paxton one, only needs a few weeks of effort if that by one person to get out assuming reused artwork and yet still needs a few weeks.
Had to go take a look at the quotes you posted. Is it just me or is the satellite dish a bit warped?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just in case my two posts get Dubois'ed...
I do hope that the Northern PDF gets released before yet another sale ends. I can't speak for others but I've put my purchases on hold since December to make sure that I don't buy something that I end up not being able to use like so many things with the FIF Southern Army Guide release. It would be a real shame if Northern players took advantage of the sale only to have their purchases made illegal weeks later.
Is it just me or is the satellite dish miscast and warped? I hope that DP9 doesn't send that exact mini out to get professionally painted if one of the centerpiece parts of it is misshapen. I do like the sculpt overall though so nice job Xactoboy!
I don't think either is inflammatory but obviously they may deal with topics DP9 might rather prefer left not discussed...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just in case my two posts get Dubois'ed...
I do hope that the Northern PDF gets released before yet another sale ends. I can't speak for others but I've put my purchases on hold since December to make sure that I don't buy something that I end up not being able to use like so many things with the FIF Southern Army Guide release. It would be a real shame if Northern players took advantage of the sale only to have their purchases made illegal weeks later.
I don't think either is inflammatory but obviously they may deal with topics DP9 might rather prefer left not discussed...
Or, he apparently can just deal with the situation by imposing his own reality once again.....
You don't have to worry, as the basic squads included in the task forces will still be legal when the new Northern Armylist is released, you'll just have a few more choices than before.
Because it's always OK for players to buy things they aren't sure work in a particular regiment type, where they don't even know what combat groups have which organizational slot in that regiment, not to mention they also don't know what models they already own might be able to get swapped in for their chosen sub-faction, nor even be able to completely put together any new models because they won't know the equipment options either.
It seems he is seriously suggesting it's acceptable for folks to possibly need to rip things apart just after they buy them, once the book gets released. Or to just buy everything, if they haven't already done so during another sale.
Just, wow.
Re-rereading the OP about the task force deals, I think the Pod stance is that this is purely intended for the v5 Alpha lists, so the missing book is essentially irrelevant. Which still doesn't make a lot of sense, given how in flux those lists are as yet.
But, to keep the conversation moving rather than just gnashing teeth over Robert's cryptic oddities, Dave's reply to my asking if force construction is going to remain in it's current bland state would seem to indicate "Yes."
I notice though that even at 40% discount the Spring task force promotion still runs $150 USD, down from $250, for (24) Northern models. Which at a single action for an average of around 10 TV each, and attaching full RSUs, could yield roughly one 180 TV force comprised of (2) nine model combat groups. One of which will need to be Recon to use the Ferrets unless they can be in an RSU for a GP, FS, or Dragoon combat group.
The planning standard for the field guides was 1,000 TV and three combat groups. It's quite a change, but how does the force $$$ cost compare in reality to other games y'all have played or demoed? The Pod reminds me of a car dealership or electronics outlet where they have high markup so they can slash "costs" dramatically to promote sales events.
Something else that hit me as I was editing this, based on Dave's reply to force construction and loadouts, is the possibility they are intentionally sitting on the Northern ebook so as to not have to change anything they've already decided is finalized or have planned for the sub-faction lists. I know that when dealing with people one should always assume incompetence before ascribing malicious intent, but things do seem a little fishy when factoring in that reply and how long they've had the completed material.
_
_
warboss wrote:Yeah, the "case closed" part was perhaps a tad too much. Eh, like you said, it won't be the first time something didn't match up visually with the rules. The late may/still a few weeks duo of comments reinforces the above that the project just doesn't seem like a priority for the pod even now months later when Robert has returned. It's a quick PDF that, if it resembles the Paxton one, only needs a few weeks of effort if that by one person to get out assuming reused artwork and yet still needs a few weeks.
Had to go take a look at the quotes you posted. Is it just me or is the satellite dish a bit warped?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just in case my two posts get Dubois'ed...
I do hope that the Northern PDF gets released before yet another sale ends. I can't speak for others but I've put my purchases on hold since December to make sure that I don't buy something that I end up not being able to use like so many things with the FIF Southern Army Guide release. It would be a real shame if Northern players took advantage of the sale only to have their purchases made illegal weeks later.
Is it just me or is the satellite dish miscast and warped? I hope that DP9 doesn't send that exact mini out to get professionally painted if one of the centerpiece parts of it is misshapen. I do like the sculpt overall though so nice job Xactoboy!
I don't think either is inflammatory but obviously they may deal with topics DP9 might rather prefer left not discussed...
He responded: "The dish must of got bent a bit when I removed it from the parts sprue and I didn't notice it before gluing all the parts together, priming it and taking the photo. Its a very thin piece of metal and can easily be bent back flat."
warboss wrote:If their production staff has been lessened as you said, another interesting tidbit will be to see who is working the booth at gencon. I believe Balance said he wasn't able to attend this year from a thread months ago and I'm not sure if IceRaptor will be either. If Mason and Jason (lol, they sound like Double Dragon twins!) go, they may or may not share the same booth since they'd likely be focused on a related but not intrinsic to DP9 product. I'm not sure if it was Ghostrider or Paradox (or someone else?) but IIRC one pulled some serious hours at the booth but it didn't sound like they'd be doing the same again.
Maybe as a newly minted game writer, our BrandonKF will make his gencon debut!??! Trust me, Brandon, pressing the flesh with the best and worst of your fellow gamers at the biggest RPG con is a life altering experience.
A case could be made for that, I suppose. I wouldn't mind meeting a few of the ladies and the gentlemen I've been chatting up since I left for Iraq the first time.
Whether I do or not, though, isn't really a question of whether Jason or Greg decide to come. I'm just a freelancer at this point in time, not staff. That, combined with my situation on personal funds makes it a big question mark.
Would I enjoy meeting everyone? Absolutely. For now, I'm just your local White Cat EWH, jamming out on every frequency I can find for the roleplaying game.
I recently posted up an update for the newest Arkana blog on my own personal blog, concerning the new rules redux that Jason and Greg are discussing with the fans. I already see a couple of the faces here have taken up on listing their own possibilities, and I'm happy to read up on them.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure if IceRaptor will be either.
I won't be at Gencon this year, I don't believe. Even if I am able to secure housing, I won't be hanging out at the booth this year, though I will probably swing by to check in and see how things are going.
BrandonKF wrote: He responded: "The dish must of got bent a bit when I removed it from the parts sprue and I didn't notice it before gluing all the parts together, priming it and taking the photo. Its a very thin piece of metal and can easily be bent back flat."
I find you an interesting and friendly enough Gearhead acquaintance Kris, but Robert doesn't need an apologist or an enabler IMO, he needs counseling, badly. If everyone else is to be held responsible for their behavior and actions in this life or a next, fools and miscreants should be accountable as well.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure if IceRaptor will be either.
I won't be at Gencon this year, I don't believe. Even if I am able to secure housing, I won't be hanging out at the booth this year, though I will probably swing by to check in and see how things are going.
I wonder that no one has ever tried to punch the daylights out of Robert, or at least take a healthy swing at him off the floors, because if ever anyone deserved it that man absolutely does. If folks wonder why nothing ever comes out on time from the Pod or they keep being unable to use miniatures they've previously paid for, look no further than the man who doesn't trust that the workers and freelancers creating material, and the players who sign up to test those products, are adults capable of any competence at all.
Which is as polite as I can manage here today about why the book isn't done.
What happened? Can you link the image or is it behind a "friend"wall on facebook?
edit: Never mind... I found it with my antisocial media skills.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do like the continuation of the leaner visual format for both aesthetic and technical reasons. I realize it isn't a conscious voluntary choice but rather likely made out of necessity (the fancy layout guy left and isn't working on it) but it is one of the things I'll likely enjoy most about the final two blitz products.
@Smilodon: Eh, just think of it this way... we have proof of life of the northern pdf now. It may come out long after most people stopped caring but at least they worked on 1 page of it which is an improvement over the last 5 months! Also, I'm impressed that the Mammoth didn't get stealth buffed again by Robert to be faster than all the fire support gears.
warboss wrote: Eh, just think of it this way... we have proof of life of the northern pdf now. It may come out long after most people stopped caring but at least they worked on 1 page of it which is an improvement over the last 5 months! Also, I'm impressed that the Mammoth didn't get stealth buffed again by Robert to be faster than all the fire support gears.
Based on this image and something else I heard today, I'm thinking more it's time to break out the chest waders while needing to also have a high gunwale'd boat rental standing by, because the flow of excrement from the Pod is going to get awfully deep awfully fast over the next month.
mrondeau wrote: It's not just an issue. It's an aversion to doing it, and a complete lack of concern and respect for their customers. They literally do not care if they publish an unplayable mess.
Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a HRG or a couple of HAACs on a Thammer?
If I'm doing the math correctly, you could have a Thunderhammer Lightning for a mere 275 TV and a veteran slot. For a 35 Armor, -1 Man, 3/5 Walking building you can't hide (because the big gun is direct fire only). Or you could, you know, get an aller for 195 TV and no Veteran slot. Well, the hammer has +1 FC I guess. Gee wiz, what should I do >_>
At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.
First northern book preview is out, and I can already throw away two of my favorite units. I can't wait for the rest, especially with the rumors I've heard.
As for Smilodon's comments on Robert, well, what can I say ? He's a control freak who's spent so much time and efforts surrounding himself with yes-men, that he can't even conceptualize the possibility of being wrong anymore. It's done wonder to DP9's market shares and reputation.
Albertorius wrote: ...I have to ask...
Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a HRG or a couple of HAACs on a Thammer?
Dev-type folks of course - when in doubt, copycat NuCoal/Paxton/South/[other Primary Faction].
I had forgotten that Flak (HAAC) and Storm (HGM) were legacy carry-overs of L&L swaps until I was checking something else out from that CG today, so as with (5) zooks allowed for the Northern Airborne squadron in that same book it must have seemed like a good idea at the time.
Odd though that the SMS got removed after all of the directives to put it on, and that someone apparently forgot the 'Hammer is too small to mount and reload the HRG (12+) without keeping the [Stabilizer] trait.
Although I see a lot of the as per usual small errors too.
And given that during one week in late November or early December the Mammoth build directives changed like ~3 times, I probably shouldn't be surprised that the L&L legacy variants & loadouts carried over got butchered so badly if not outright removed.
WTF use is a Brawler that still lacks it's MAAC (MAC) firepower from NVC 1.
I honestly have absolutely no clue why the idea of snubs being such a fearsome weapon is so persistent amongst the Pod leadership.
Albertorius wrote: At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.
Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.
Albertorius wrote: At least the double HAACd one goes for 125. Still don't know why the hell would I want one, though.
Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.
Well, yes, I guess it would be a nice AA strider. The question remains... why the hell a Strider AA variant? The North already has plenty of options for that kind of work (Cheetah Air Claw, Dfender Grizzly, Flak Jaguar, Bird Arrow, anything at all with laser cannons... hell even the White Cat EWH could do it in a pinch) that are a whole lot less conspicuous, smaller, cheaper (in both TV and moneys) and less prone to retaliation (via, you know, actually being able to hide).
IceRaptor wrote: Certain parts of the playtesting community - at least around the time of the NuCoal book - seemed to believe the HAAC was a 'god-weapon' for some reason. They wanted it priced on par with a ATM Hussar, because it was 'just crazy lethal'. The math says that the HAAC should - on average - function like a very long range LBZK, so that point of view has to be skewed by some really good roles. However, I would assume the Thunderhammer HAAC variant is probably a 'fluff' variant, that they think 'works' for AA or something like that.
Albertorius wrote: The question remains... why the hell a Strider AA variant? The North already has plenty of options for that kind of work (Cheetah Air Claw, Defender Grizzly, Flak Jaguar, Bird Arrow, anything at all with laser cannons... hell even the White Cat EWH could do it in a pinch) that are a whole lot less conspicuous, smaller, cheaper (in both TV and moneys) and less prone to retaliation (via, you know, actually being able to hide).
I think what mrondeau said before where test games should have not only a set force parameter but also a relatively fixed table set-up made a lot of sense.
While everybody seems to be playing a game called by the same name, I am more and more unconvinced that folks are playing the same game using the same actual ruleset.
I get the impression quite a few folks play only with what they understand, outright ignore what they don't like, and change what they can't figure out so their favored models & weapons actually work.
Or else their battles take place on a bare table at a foot or less of range.
Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
"I can't see that."
"I can't detect that."
"I can't hit that."
"I can't damage that."
"I declare reaction fire. Oh, it didn't do anything."
"I didn't purchase any artillery strikes, I'm screwed."
"I'm in melee range, I can't do anything. Your activation."
"I can't out-action your EWAR & Sat Uplinks, I'm screwed."
"Ah, that model I couldn't hit with reaction fire OK'ed my model from just outside 3 inches."
"I hit that with stacked + & - mods, but didn't do any damage because the model tied my roll."
"I created a fire sack using full RoF spray from an entire combat group, and didn't kill your model(s)."
"Ah, that charging model I couldn't hit with reaction fire got a free melee strike for Top Speed and OK'ed my model."
"I can target a board location with direct RoF spray and not damage anything, or I can IF blindly and hope for a deviation without going OoA."
Although I haven't played that much admittedly for years, I have experienced the same thing (even when not playing you in vassal). Everyone of the things you mentioned has occurred in my limited set of FM games so you're not imagining them.
Has anyone who plays more regularly tried using the alpha rule of having your speed only count for your own activation but otherwise you default to combat speed? I might try that if I ever get in another game of blitz. It saves on table clutter without the speed dice and simplifies things a tiny bit for the deadlier (which is largely a good thing in blitz).
While everybody seems to be playing a game called by the same name, I am more and more unconvinced that folks are playing the same game using the same actual ruleset. I get the impression quite a few folks play only with what they understand, outright ignore what they don't like, and change what they can't figure out so their favored models & weapons actually work. Or else their battles take place on a bare table at a foot or less of range.
Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
"I can't see that."
"I can't detect that."
"I can't hit that."
"I can't damage that."
"I declare reaction fire. Oh, it didn't do anything."
"I didn't purchase any artillery strikes, I'm screwed."
"I'm in melee range, I can't do anything. Your activation."
"I can't out-action your EWAR & Sat Uplinks, I'm screwed."
"Ah, that model I couldn't hit with reaction fire OK'ed my model from just outside 3 inches."
"I hit that with stacked + & - mods, but didn't do any damage because the model tied my roll."
"I created a fire sack using full RoF spray from an entire combat group, and didn't kill your model(s)."
"Ah, that charging model I couldn't hit with reaction fire got a free melee strike for Top Speed and OK'ed my model."
"I can target a board location with direct RoF spray and not damage anything, or I can IF blindly and hope for a deviation without going OoA." _
_
Hah, yup, a good deal of those things are issues we ran into repeatedly. Reaction fire was useless, most default weapon loadouts couldn't hurt anything without massive mod stacking (and then you could've done it with an upgraded weapon and just overkilled the target), melee with default weapons was also anemic. Detect wasn't a huge issue on our boards, as we didn't use enough area terrain. Oh and EW was pointless, as spotters don't require any EW, massed infantry on ATVs could overcome any amount of EW with ease, and FM changes meant stopping CP usage was impossible, and that was probably the only other valid reason to use EW. (Though many of the EW models came with good Detect, so there is that)
Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.
(The HAC/HAAC is decent, but not sure why people consider it amazing, AGMs and ATMs are definitely more dangerous.)
EDIT: Oh wait, situationally, reaction fire was mildly useful if you had a godlike open shot. Ie, you were from above, stationary, stealthed, with firecontrol and a laser shooting at someone in the open. Granted, unless that guy running around in the open was doing something really good, it was almost always better to wait and stack a couple more mods on like crossfire and coordinated target.
Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.
Beyond the fact that I helped out a little bit, I'm interested in the Northern PDF getting out instead of languishing as it is the final piece of the Silhouette puzzle. For better or worse, it is the last chapter in that saga and even if the story took some very wrong turns midway through the novel it doesn't mean that I don't want to read the final chapter. YMMV.
ferrous wrote: Its one of the reasons why I'm kind of surprised people are at all clamoring for the North book, as the standard rules are a craptastic mess.
I'm still hoping to get paid in full, so I will admit to bias, but I think for many it may have to do with seeing what comes out that might get applied into the v5 ruleset, or even just the novelty of the final HGB! product.
Although, given how Dave has been acting over the sub-faction lists and the kind of things Robert keeps dreaming up that he considers "acceptable" to the game and setting, I'm not sure how much if anything might get ported over.
After all, they have had the material for four entire months now so it's obviously not a priority with either of them.
ferrous wrote: The HAC/HAAC is decent, but not sure why people consider it amazing, AGMs and ATMs are definitely more dangerous.
Not a clue.
As with the dread fascination some folks have for the snub cannon, and their essentially unshakable belief in it's efficacy, all I can figure is what I pointed out earlier about people using only interpretations of the rules that allow them to create situations where those weapons work like how they think they should work.
Because otherwise how are they beating the average, what the math says the results should be, to have that kind of perception in the first place?
Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math", and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us. I think that got them heard over others. Otherwise I think some simple math shouldn't shown that triple linked MRPs are crazy overpowered. (And that triple link in general is a bad idea.)
The snub is definitely one of those things, that, if it hits a model juuuust right, it does a ton, and I think that colors perceptions on it. Or maybe folks are still counting it as AP, that certainly would make it amazing.
Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
(...)
There's a trend with Heavy Gear blitz that might have been discussed in other threads. The enthusiasm of a player is usually inversely proportional to their experience with the game. You read the book, do a couple of demos, it's awesome. Then you start playing actual games...
Because almost every one of my games has involved a near infinite loop of the following situations, which doesn't seem to be at all what some other folks are having happen using the same rules;
(...)
There's a trend with Heavy Gear blitz that might have been discussed in other threads. The enthusiasm of a player is usually inversely proportional to their experience with the game. You read the book, do a couple of demos, it's awesome. Then you start playing actual games...
Wait... people find opponents to play games? That stopped me for years! I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.
ferrous wrote: Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math", and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us.
Enthusiasm is a far more valued at DP9 than competence, and that's a polite understatement.
Smilodon_UP wrote:I'm still hoping to get paid in full, so I will admit to bias
Wait... people find opponents to play games? That stopped me for years! I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.
Well, finding opponents lets you play games. Playing games lets you realize the issues plaguing the game, and usually leads to not playing the game anymore. Therefore you should consider yourself lucky to never have been able to find opponents !
ferrous wrote: And that triple link in general is a bad idea.
Yeah, the Pod devs are really bad IMHO about seeing something broken and trying to quash it, only to then turn right around and add in their own ideas that do the exact same thing because somebody else got away with it before.
Or else, hey, it's "cool."
And once something hits Robert's arbitrary executive decision making or gets otherwise brought to his attention, he'll do the same thing while removing actual legitimate inclusions intended to fix some problem, even if only for the sake of one potential sale.
ferrous wrote: [..] and unfortunately those guys had more enthusiasm and positive attitude than the rest of us. I think that got them heard over others.
HudsonD wrote: Enthusiasm is a far more valued at DP9 than competence, and that's a polite understatement.
warboss wrote: I need to move to this mythical place of unicorns, rainbows, and enthusiastic HGB players.
For the current incarnation of HGB!, my opinion would be that land is called Vegas.
Well, there was/is a fairly large and vocal contingent over there who, I quote, "Don't believe in math"...
First, they don't just don't believe in math, they believe that those that understand math are downright lying liar that lie.
Second, as far as I can see, the contingent that don't believe in math includes everyone, with the exceptions of Hudson, Ice and Smilodon, with the authority to decide anything since Blitz. Especially Robert.
Smilodon_UP wrote: For the current incarnation of HGB!, my opinion would be that land is called Vegas.
Last I had heard, the Alpha had basically killed their enthusiasm for the game. Were I going to Gencon, I expected AL13N to have some not so nice things to say... but who knows. C'est la vie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smilodon_UP wrote: Because otherwise how are they beating the average, what the math says the results should be, to have that kind of perception in the first place?
One thing I've always found with HGB is that it's *extremely* sensitive to the local 'meta'. If your playgroup runs lots of -1 or -2 DEF models, then the SC will probably end up giving you a pretty solid hit most of the time. If your meta runs mostly +1 DEF models, it's going to be next to useless - unless you pickup some of the upgrades. Similarly, a IF heavy force can be shut down with table conditions or similar, making it less viable. It completely depends on how you play.
It was a real shock to see the boards that the Vegas folks like to play one - they are fairly open, basically Warmachine boards. They expected elite Gears like Jaguars to be able to stand in the open and take fire (like LACs/MACs) without being damaged. Whereas we locally were basically playing on Infinity boards, which if you're not familiar with that game, are extremely dense. Trying to figure out what to orchestrate the game to represent the best was very challenging.
IceRaptor wrote: Last I had heard, the Alpha had basically killed their enthusiasm for the game. Were I going to Gencon, I expected AL13N to have some not so nice things to say... but who knows. C'est la vie.
Given the comments some of those folks left on the last test group's message list about the ruleset change I would expect them to stay with current Blitz! in their locale rather than embrace whatever the v5 Alpha turns into, if they even keep playing.
Which if I recall from the GU interview with AL13N to be something like half a dozen or so steady players to almost sixty casual players. Based on that it's probably the only large HG community left.
I was honestly a little shocked some of them even had negative things to say about the Pod at all when it was apparently revealed early last Fall that Badlands Rally was a "semi-test" version of where the company wanted to take the rules.
Although a few of them seem pretty happy about the model reveals tied to the Alpha over on the Pod's FB page, so who knows.
I don't expect their group to stay with Blitz honestly. Even when there was private condemnation, the public face of the response was praise shortly after. In any case, those opinions are many months old and there has been alot of room for change. I guess someone could simply ask what they plan to do but I suspect we'll just find out in time.
Smilodon_UP wrote: As with the dread fascination some folks have for the snub cannon, and their essentially unshakable belief in it's efficacy
That was one of the things that puzzled me during my brief time with the game. It seemed fairly popular on the forum, but I couldn't see why anyone would want to use the thing. And to make matters worse, the way that it was bundled with gear squads almost forced you to use it.
warboss wrote: I guess someone could simply ask what they plan to do but I suspect we'll just find out in time.
True enough, and I'm extremely dubious that the Pod is going to make up losing those numbers with the v5 ruleset and all the "new money" it will supposedly bring into their coffers.
IceRaptor wrote: One thing I've always found with HGB is that it's *extremely* sensitive to the local 'meta'. If your playgroup runs lots of -1 or -2 DEF models, then the SC will probably end up giving you a pretty solid hit most of the time. If your meta runs mostly +1 DEF models, it's going to be next to useless - unless you pickup some of the upgrades.
Eumerin wrote: That was one of the things that puzzled me during my brief time with the game. It seemed fairly popular on the forum, but I couldn't see why anyone would want to use the thing. And to make matters worse, the way that it was bundled with gear squads almost forced you to use it.
Exactly - players are forced to use it because the company president, and whomever he plays with, believe it to be good.
And something else I've heard from a few folks that have played Robert and some other Pod leaders at conventions is that their grasp on the rules left a lot to be desired, so that has to be figured in as well; they play their game(s) in a manner that lets things like the Snub work how they imagine.
Recall as well that these are the folks primarily behind turning HG into a setting that clones whichever mecha ideas they opine as workable and acceptable.
With the last book it was tried to cut down in the generic Gear combat groups where the Snub was available, to better differentiate what each squadron "did" in-game.
And that removal, from just a single (1) combat group already overfilled with swap options, lasted only three months.
Robert was adamant that because Snubs came in the box it had to still be in that squad, even though the testers, dev, and writer agreed virtually no players ever used it there because of other, more effective, available options on those models.
His excuse was that it would "affect sales," and as proof he forwarded an email from (1) not as yet a customer person who wanted to know how he could make the squad pictured on the box.
Along with that Robert assumed that the test group and writer had not adequately ensured that the contents of the existing Northern miniatures boxes were represented.
He also missed the sarcasm when I told him that of course we hadn't, so that I could get his attention to maybe include bits for new variants from the field guide that should be in the boxes for the changes being made.
To cover as much as possible the sub-types in each Gear combat group.
And all of this happened even though the Pod freely sells or makes available individual bits, not to mention that here recently Dave commented on something about how removing unused bits from boxes or blisters was a good economical move for the company.
The amusing, or sickening, part here is that I would be hard pressed to make up stories about these kind of interactions.
Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jagers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box? I'm guessing that the fact that people on wargame forums have memories like elephants and hold grudges for life also factor into his stance. I still see people complain about the move from RAFM scale when Heavy Gear is brought up.
My opinion would be to fix it so that the thing is useful, or at least better as a dedicated tank hunter than any other weapon even close to the same points. Instead of being more expensive (with the DTHI upgrade) and less useful than a MBZK. (Which they also let entire squads get one of, way to go whoever came up with that stupid 'fix')
But, ugh, Blitz had so many issues with weapons and weapon loadouts and especially default weapons, it was like a massive trap for anyone who didn't spend a good deal of time playing with proxies or other people's armies first. And ugh, when they're lead playtest guy made that "Lacking in LACs" article, it made me laugh, as it was such a bury the head in the sand kind of move and stubbornly refuse to admit that ACs were terrible.
ferrous wrote: Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jägers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box?.
Ah, I caused a bit of miscommunication there.
The box wasn't invalidated.
It could and can still be used to make another combat group that already had the legacy option to take Snubs but doesn't have it's own dedicated squad box.
We only removed that weapon availability from the combat group type that had much better options, where virtually no player ever took the Snub.
Which however was the squadron he made me put it back into, no matter that nothing was grossly changed.
Any explanation, reasonable or not, always falls on deaf ears with him once he "decides" something, which is a euphemism for "automatic executive fiat" because his understanding of the game and market is better.
One issue with the field guide format is that there can only be (8) eight each of [General] and [Veteran] options depending on if any information boxes have to be formatted to fit on the page as well.
So losing unused options opens up space to add something that is likely to be used in that combat group, or to better cover needed legacy.
But even when I had that conversation he had already decided the boxes were not going to be revamped, even before the book was completed, and even though the v5 rules were not yet released as Alpha material.
Change can't happen if the person running the company isn't open to reasoned change.
Illustrative of that fact is this example. This is an acceptable change, and will be added to the appropriate miniature boxes, because he thought it up.
In that same vein, the Northern PDF is not done because he also has "ideas" of where it needs to change from the marginally tested but reasonably coherent version to accommodate something else he recently thought up.
More of those acceptable to himself ideas that would gut both multiple factions and combat groups so as to require rewriting most of the book.
He then fully intends to release without any critical commentary allowed, without any hesitation over the work/time put into the original version, or any acknowledgement that his ideas might come off as more examples of money-grubbing yet largely ineffective inclusions in an as per usual grossly delayed product in the midst of an entire rules revamp of his company's sole remaining gaming title.
ferrous wrote: And ugh, when they're lead playtest guy made that "Lacking in LACs" article, it made me laugh, as it was such a bury the head in the sand kind of move and stubbornly refuse to admit that ACs were terrible.
For the most part, he sold his soul to Robert to be allowed to do as he pleased with his Paxton faction and remain a dev, while simultaneously washing his hands of the last project other than to relay directives from on high and veto much anything that changed his ideas in the source material.
But yeah, the upper Pod folks think nothing of adding exception after exception to the Locked & Loaded or Field Manual weapon tables with each publication and at the same time are completely unwilling to make global changes where they need to be made. It's just utterly frustrating, and an attitude that drives folks away in droves.
Smilodon_UP wrote: But yeah, the upper Pod folks think nothing of adding exception after exception to the Locked & Loaded or Field Manual weapon tables with each publication and at the same time are completely unwilling to make global changes where they need to be made. It's just utterly frustrating, and an attitude that drives folks away in droves.
Reminds me...
We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).
We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).
The Pod never answered that one for the same reason the "official" rules thread didn't last one month. They genuinely don't care.
ferrous wrote: Heh, I actually understand Robert a little bit on that one, invalidating stuff that comes in those boxes is probably problematic. That said, those boxes needed a major revamp anyway, as who the heck wants five Jagers or five Hunters? And how hard is it to put a new picture on the box?
I'm guessing the issue isn't putting the new picture on the box but rather wasting the money on likely hundreds if not more box covers already spent with money being tight. Changing the contents without changing the outer box cover means they're not accurately describing the products. Not including the inaccurate covers means you wasted the money to print them (and they're likely printed in large numbers at once instead of on demand). That said... there is absolutely no problem with removing an option but keeping the bits. Hell, if snubs went away from strike squads, you'd still be able to field the exact same minis as a dragoon instead. The key is to not screw over player collections significantly but also not be repetitive and/or stagnant.
ferrous wrote: I'm guessing that the fact that people on wargame forums have memories like elephants and hold grudges for life also factor into his stance. I still see people complain about the move from RAFM scale when Heavy Gear is brought up.
That is a fair statement with some truth. Things happen, and frequently they are neither anyone's fault nor within anyone's control. I think people are too used to instant gratification in every aspect of their lives anymore to be understanding of reality until they're the ones in a bind or getting the blame to cover somebody's backside.
At the same time there is also the consideration that there should be no such thing as another second chance. More so in the face of repeated instances of genuine intent on the part of a company to create an environment detrimental to their player-base as well as themselves.
Since all the fallout from Forged in Fire the only major difference between Heavy Gear and a largely unknown game title produced part-time in somebody's basement is that the Pod still has a small casting studio for the time being.
warboss wrote: Hell, if snubs went away from strike squads, you'd still be able to field the exact same minis as a dragoon instead.
You're going to get such a mighty pranging if you don't stop being so reasonable!
We never did get an answer about how salary caps were supposed to work in Arena. It was one of the most critical parts of running a campaign, and the rules were completely unuseable. Forum members suggested a kludge that sort of got it to work. But it was obvious (at least partly due to one of the scenarios) that the kludge wasn't the intended method. And DP9 itself never said one word about the issue (even when they eventually posted an FAQ for the game).
The Pod never answered that one for the same reason the "official" rules thread didn't last one month. They genuinely don't care.
And given how critical salary caps are to being able to, you know, actually play Arena (hint - *extremely* so), it's telling.
Smilodon_UP wrote: At the same time there is also the consideration that there should be no such thing as another second chance. More so in the face of repeated instances of genuine intent on the part of a company to create an environment detrimental to their player-base as well as themselves.
To be fair, there really hasn't been. HGB's popularity and numbers have declined since L&L and show no signs of recovery. I think the question now is, how long can they hold on.
As it stands right now, I don't plan on buying the beta rules pdf if they're over $5. I don't expect to get my three game playtesting credit either since I didn't fill out the 8 page playtest report on any of the games I did either and I assume they'll use that stipulation to deny it. I'll buy the northern PDF but if they charge more than a nominal amount for the beta then I'd rather just wait to see what shakes out of all this for the final release in 2015.
That said... I have no idea if the beta will be paid purchase, free, or a credit towards the full release ala FFG. I just don't see myself paying the typical DP9 pdf rate for the priveledge of working further on the rules and army lists.
Smilodon_UP wrote:
I find you an interesting and friendly enough Gearhead acquaintance Kris, but Robert doesn't need an apologist or an enabler IMO, he needs counseling, badly. If everyone else is to be held responsible for their behavior and actions in this life or a next, fools and miscreants should be accountable as well.
I can't make comments about it man.
Never met him, haven't spoken with him.
Much of my interaction with anyone related to the Pod have been all the freelancers. All of whom have their own ideas, their own perceptions, and their own opinions.
I'm aware of what folks say and what folks don't say. I don't like it much, but I'm aware. Suffice to say my work is my own, and I hope to be helpful to everyone, including fans who are old and those who are newcomers.
IceRaptor wrote: HGB's popularity and numbers have declined since L&L and show no signs of recovery. I think the question now is, how long can they hold on.
Given the handful on the forums plus the all but automatically positive crowd on FB, yeah, the Pod isn't exactly surrounded by swarms of customers these days, nor attracting much anyone else. Not that that seems to faze either the generalissimo or Dave in the least....
warboss wrote: I'll buy the northern PDF but if they charge more than a nominal amount for the beta then I'd rather just wait to see what shakes out of all this for the final release in 2015.
If I thought anything would result from doing so I'd tell folks to boycott the book, but I know most of the players who are left as customers don't care about the "why" of things like that.
But given the good advice I got elsewhere today and last night, I guess it is time to leave the Pod and it's supporters to stew in the toxic malignancy of what goes on behind the curtain until it all comes crashing down from sustained idiocy.
I've got enough other crap going on in my life to not need theirs on top of it, and I'm sick to death of stifling my own creativity because it doesn't fit the mold of what those same folks consider unobjectionable.
At least in this, I'm reasonably sure I'm not alone, or at least not in the general feeling of it. Y'all know how to find me if you need to.
But given the good advice I got elsewhere today and last night, I guess it is time to leave the Pod and it's supporters to stew in the toxic malignancy of what goes on behind the curtain until it all comes crashing down from sustained idiocy.
I've got enough other crap going on in my life to not need theirs on top of it, and I'm sick to death of stifling my own creativity because it doesn't fit the mold of what those same folks consider unobjectionable.
At least in this, I'm reasonably sure I'm not alone, or at least not in the general feeling of it. Y'all know how to find me if you need to.
1) I like the minis. I enjoy assembling and painting them. Played a few times, and am figuring out the clunky parts of Blitz, and fully intend to house rule them into more streamlined, quicker playing. Read the Alpha, and while some interesting ideas, don't know if they actually fix the problems without introducing brand new problems.
2) Game balance issues we'll probably just fix on our own by allowing certain factions a few more points. Playing for fun, so its not like there are competitive issues to worry about.
DP9 has many issues as a company, most of which can be fixed. There just does not seem to exist the will to fix them. Which disappoints me, because I like the world, I like the aesthetics and scale of the minis, and - believe it or not - I kind of like the core mechanic of Blitz. The game has a niche in the market that nobody else is really competing with in theme and scale, and should be able to grow from that. Just kind of sad they do not seem to be able or willing to do it.
RJVF wrote: Which disappoints me, because I like the world, I like the aesthetics and scale of the minis, and - believe it or not - I kind of like the core mechanic of Blitz. The game has a niche in the market that nobody else is really competing with in theme and scale, and should be able to grow from that. Just kind of sad they do not seem to be able or willing to do it.
The core issue has always been that there's not a clear purpose for where they want to take the company. Are they trying to appeal to more players? Do they want a larger game, with less detailed models or a smaller game, with more details ones? Are they a wargames company, or a RPG company? It's always felt like there are multiple people doing good work, but nobody weaving it all together. I'm hoping Dave can start doing so, but I'm worried that as resources get slimmer, Robert will feel the need to step in and I believe he doesn't have the knowledge to do that critical component. He should be that person - it's his company - but he's had years to figure out his competitors and hasn't done so. C'est la vie.
Are there any HG events on the prereg list? Apparently you have to be a member of their site to even *LOOK* at the games (which is stupid IMO) and my old login doesn't work from years ago.
warboss wrote: @ Anyone going to gencon:
Are there any HG events on the prereg list?
Can't imagine it will be all that much if anything. Because without significant freebie support yet again, by fans who're willing to give up big chunks of their paid convention time, who is there left to even run anything and be able to play by the rules?
If they attend, the Arkrite folks should probably be at their own booth to promote themselves and also emphasize that they have chosen to distance themselves from working directly with DP9.
Regarding the stupid images still going up on Facebook but not the DP9 forums; I have been fired from working on the Northern book.
I have also never seen most of the art being used.
In fact, I was told the Lynx was a variant of the Ferret, and nothing like this Badlands Rally-oriented joke of a model.
I will say however that folks like that one commenter who constantly ask things like "Where's my Gear-Strider" etc etc, whether joking or not, is exactly the kind of stuff, er "market research," TPTB responds to, thus adding increasing amounts of silly bs to the setting - all for the sake of (1) potential sale.
Whether or not the commenter is even a player or not never, ever, enters into the process.
I don't think the guy is joking about the gearstrider but neither am I when I say that I sincerely hope HG keeps one Terra Novan faction gearstrider free and the north seems as good of a choice as any.
warboss wrote: I don't think the guy is joking about the gearstrider but neither am I
Smilodon_UP wrote: [...]I'm thinking more it's time to break out the chest waders while needing to also have a high gunwale'd rental boat standing by, because the flow of excrement from the Pod is going to get awfully deep awfully fast over the next month.
As y'all can imagine, there is now absolutely no one left with the Pod who will stand up to Robert and tell him when his ideas are not workable or overdone, if not outright s**t.
They might say they will, but in the end they won't, nor will they call themselves on anything beyond the most obviously gross excesses of munchkin cheesiness until a sufficient furor is raised.
And usually not even then of late.
I only wish I was exaggerating here, because for the future of the setting the writing on the wall sucks.
Leaving only for even more folks to walk away and take from the setting what they still like, out of an already miniscule handful of active players.
For the folks that stay Robert, Dave, and Saleem are your game gods - and that is about the long and the short of it.
I won't say that it's necessarily a warning, but do be cognizant of that fact and watch your backs, as well as how you say whatever it is you say to or around them.
Yeah! The guy that thinks that short range weapons are better than long range weapons is going to be piling up things for DP9 again!
Robert will probably promote him to whatever title he decides to use for the poor sob responsible for the rules when he's done with Dave.
Are there any HG events on the prereg list? Apparently you have to be a member of their site to even *LOOK* at the games (which is stupid IMO) and my old login doesn't work from years ago.
I just checked - AFAICT there's no events for DP9 this year.
Are there any HG events on the prereg list? Apparently you have to be a member of their site to even *LOOK* at the games (which is stupid IMO) and my old login doesn't work from years ago.
I just checked - AFAICT there's no events for DP9 this year.
Thanks for checking. I can't say though that this particular bit of news is good though considering they're debuting a new "edition" of sorts (the beta version at least) there or surprising giving the last few years. I guess they can't spare any folks from the booth to run official games elsewhere and no one else stepped up to run them independently.
To my understanding, the plan (such as it is) is for a reduced 'presence' this year. basically not doing a huge booth like the last few years, and no formal events. I suggested trying to get some space outside the exhibit hall to do more personal demos and get some feedback, but was shot down. Demos in the hall need to be super short and quick
At best, it's a "building year" with a lot less expense. I won't be surprised if Jason & Greg's company has some RPG stuff for 2015, albeit possibly in a demo form if they're not close to release.
I guess they're really short on manpower. I'm a bit surprised that folks like Alien didn't run games themselves but if they're choosing to stay with Blitz instead of the Alpha project possibly then I could also see them not wanting to shine the spotlight on something other than the beta in the only games being run. I guess it'll just be Robert and Dave then at the booth but no fan friends then? In any case, thanks for the update and I wish them well.
warboss wrote: I guess they're really short on manpower. I'm a bit surprised that folks like Alien didn't run games themselves but if they're choosing to stay with Blitz instead of the Alpha project possibly then I could also see them not wanting to shine the spotlight on something other than the beta in the only games being run. I guess it'll just be Robert and Dave then at the booth but no fan friends then? In any case, thanks for the update and I wish them well.
There's a few locals I assume will help out that usually do so... I, personally, was planing to attend 'with friends' which would have meant I'd happily help with setup/teardown and maybe a few hours, but not nearly as much as last year where I "worked" the event (I think I ran demos nearly all day for at least one day of the event).
I know this may be interpreted as 'white knighting' but I do think that going light for a year or two is ultimately a good move. At best the alpha rules will be ready to show (I'm skeptical about that... I consider it a low chance they'll be anything more than an early beta-level version).
If it was my call, I'd try to get space in the room GenCon reserves for games under beta that was premiered a couple years ago. Hand out quick-printed rules as a gimme to anyone willing to do a demo! Try to actually talk to people, instead of demos in the exhibit room.
But not my call.
(I'm a pretty quiet guy in person. 3 days in the exhibit hall and my voice is toast.)
I wouldn't worry about what it is interpreted from your post as it is a reasonable view when combined with some sort of effort outside of the 10am-6pm dealer's room work. I would hope they'd do more but that is just my "black knight" opinion as well. Hell, who knows... maybe they'll schedule a bevy of after hours games that will show up in the on-site reg books.
I would however disagree that taking two years off is anything close to a good move though. The big premiere of the official rules is supposed to be next year so if they don't spend the time/money/effort to push it at that point then it will probably fail. DP9 doesn't have the large fanbase anymore buying everything they put out no matter how premature (2 years between editions) that will keep them afloat IMO. I used to use 40k as an example of not edition flipflopping every 2 years but they've decided to do that for the first time just this past week since profits actually fell in the mid quarter report (as opposed to just remaining stagnant due to price increases despite dropping unit sales).
Two years off is probably not a good idea, but this may be a case where a small, but active booth is better than a large but low-traffic looking booth. I did suggest trying to schedule some events, even if it was in a more RPG-focused room doing limited demos for 2-4 players or similar. Please keep in mind that 'off' in this case is still a bigger space than a lot of companies have in the exhibit hall.
Another interesting point that someone brought up elsewhere is who will be painting the new release minis now that Mason is no longer working for DP9. They may have an agreement for him to paint on the side but I imagine his priorities are his own licensed products now. That could be why we're only seeing primed (and occasionally deformed) pics of minis on the official previews.
Not sure, but I can't remember the last mini he painted for an 'official' release. Was it as far back as the Caprice/CEF Frames he did for RtCE? A lot of stuff is just done by Phil, I think.
I didn't know Phil painted them as well besides sculpting. I know they used the Infinity guy for the Southern FIF minis but he has since gone steady with Infinity and doesn't paint for other companies.
I think painting the minis is probably the least of the Pod's worries at this point.
Virtually no new art in the last three products.
No more trained layout artist.
Anemic (at best) mini releases for new books.
All conventions cancelled save for Gencon.
All events cancelled at Gencon.
The list goes on...
Gencon used to be the primary recruiting effort for DP9, and they gave up on it ? That's kind of a big red flag there...
Well, to be honest, is there a point to spending money to hook people initially if there are so many reasons you won't retain them? (see poll above) Blitz obviously has some issues of its own and every edition swap causes churn and burn of the playerbase (even if the company gives the edition an appropriate lifespan of 4-5 years).
Well, HGB has always had terrible player retention, but the Pod focused on impulse sales and new customers (much like GW) and simply ignored the after-sale support, with Arena the perfect example.
Put it simply, the Pod will try very hard to sell you and your buddies an army, and forget you forever after that.
It appears the nomad approach isn't enough to sustain them anymore, but can they switch to another model ? They've given up on conventions, which were their main recruiting drive.
Balance wrote: Demos in the hall need to be super short and quick.
I haven't kept up past the second-ish revamp of the Alpha. How long is 3, 2, or 1 versus the same number of opposing models supposed to take in an area the size of the round demo tables?
warboss wrote: Well, to be honest, is there a point to spending money to hook people initially if there are so many reasons you won't retain them?
HudsonD wrote: It appears the nomad approach isn't enough to sustain them anymore, but can they switch to another model ?
When a freelancer gives a company what it wanted from it's own source material within how they were allowed to do it, yet the completed project still isn't what was desired even though they in all likelihood got blamed for the failure or miscommunication, there probably isn't a whole lot anyone can do with the company at that point besides move on.
It's just so futile... and such a waste of already limited time in life.
I haven't kept up past the second-ish revamp of the Alpha. How long is 3, 2, or 1 versus the same number of opposing models supposed to take in an area the size of the round demo tables?
It really depends. If kept controlled, I think a 3 on 3 might be a 20-30 minutes, which is a bit long for random people that get sucked in to the booth, but OK for people that are interested in the game. That's also assuming you're avoiding a lot of stuff like ECM/ECCM, indirect fire, etc.
One thing that was discussed last year that I liked was reworking the starter box to fill the goals of being less generic, a better demo, and more interesting. my thought was to go PAK with a light HT versus some Gears that could go PAK or either North or South depending on details. Run for demos, it's South vs. PAK, but you can also use it as a usable backbone for a full force. It's visually appealing (People like the tanks!) and I think it could show off more of the game than base mechanics.
Admittedly, I only do demos at Gen Con, which is a bit different in scale from other conventions.
I definitely agree with the above and might have even suggested it in a thread over in grog last year (can't remember). I don't think it'll matter much though until they switch the starter to plastic as the resin model prices (which includes all the tanks) are toxic to new players in my experience.
Yeah, I've railed against the Starter kit and the horrible GP squad packs for a while, without much success. The way the Blitz rules work, the game is at it's worst with all vanilla troops, especially for new players, since the weapons are so anemic that you could fire at each other every round and have nothing happen. Vet players could at least attempt to stack mods that the new players wouldn't know about. It also doesn't showcase one of the more unique mechanics that is having alternating squads instead of igo/yougo.
Not to mention it leaves you with a bunch of models that weren't really worth having in an actual army. If you take a look at most of the lists posted in the army building section and count the number of jagers and hunters in them, the great majority of them come up zero.
The least they could've done is had it be Mamba + 2 Jagers vs Jaguar + 2 Hunters.
EDIT: (Or they could've made the rules of the game such that vanilla models were actually useful, but they seemed unable to know how to do that, and I'm still not sure the Alpha is going to address that well enough)
EDIT: (Or they could've made the rules of the game such that vanilla models were actually useful, but they seemed unable to know how to do that, and I'm still not sure the Alpha is going to address that well enough)
It at least was a goal, but no clue if it's working or not.
EDIT: (Or they could've made the rules of the game such that vanilla models were actually useful, but they seemed unable to know how to do that, and I'm still not sure the Alpha is going to address that well enough)
It at least was a goal, but no clue if it's working or not.
Yeah, I haven't looked, I lost track after more rules were added to the ACs like Split Fire, which seemed like it was poorly thought out, at least in the incarnation I saw, as it ended up making rocket packs obsolete.
That does bring up an interesting point. Initially, part of the reason for going with these rules was to allow for a leaner game that plays faster with more figs. While the EW and command options in HG are definitely positive things, there is sometimes too much of a good thing. I haven't read the latest two variants and haven't played even longer than that so I can't comment for sure but we seem to be approaching blitz levels of grit again from a casual glance.
I unfortunately ended up no longer playing because I couldn't find people to play with. I actually broke the some of the miniatures out recently, there are quite a few packs that I haven't assembled or painted yet and started to do that.
warboss wrote: That does bring up an interesting point. Initially, part of the reason for going with these rules was to allow for a leaner game that plays faster with more figs. While the EW and command options in HG are definitely positive things, there is sometimes too much of a good thing. I haven't read the latest two variants and haven't played even longer than that so I can't comment for sure but we seem to be approaching blitz levels of grit again from a casual glance.
Heh, that one I'm not really all that heartbroken about, I think the previous 800-1000TV forces, or about 3-4 squads of 4-5, wasn't too bad at all, size wise.
It's all about the benjamins, baby! If they make the game cheaper and easier to play then they can encourage you to buy more models. My fear is that they'll only accomplish the latter.
warboss wrote: It's all about the benjamins, baby! If they make the game cheaper and easier to play then they can encourage you to buy more models. My fear is that they'll only accomplish the latter.
Yeah, that felt like a bit of a desperate cash grab. If I was the one doing a revamp, I would hope that simplification could lead to that, but it wouldn't have been one of my main goals. (And it looked like from the beginning that it might not really be the case, some of the new rules looked more complicated than the old ones, like offboard support)
I frankly don't think either of them needs that many and should be cut down to 4 max. Most of the extras are just "filler" with the core set + a polar faction.
Look, it's obvious that player cannot personalized their list if they don't have a large set of official army list to choose from. Without that, they might have to think about what they want to play, how they want to play it and how to do it with a "normal" army list! That's clearly impossible! The only solution is to have 1 type of army list per player! That way, every player's list is personalized. Wait... I think I just figured out why DP9 is so uninterested in player retention: they want to reduce the player base. With fewer players, they would only need a few sub-faction to cover everyone! It's fool proof!
More seriously, that's just DP9's "design" philo"sophy" at work: pile things up, without concern for complexity, balance, relevance or coherence. The solution to every problem is to add more components.
mrondeau wrote: DP9's "design" philo"sophy" at work: pile things up, without concern for complexity, balance, relevance or coherence. The solution to every problem is to add more components.
I definitely agree with you on all of that. They want players to keep buying miniatures from their monopoly over the title, but continually keep going out of their way to hinder that very same process.
And Prophet forbid you ever dare to point that out at any time.
dave wrote:Equipment availability and the character of different military forces on Terra Nova goes beyond a list of equipment.
er... What models, and which variants for those models, a force may take from it's availability does determine it's tabletop character.
I thought that line was a little weird yet kind of telling.
Because really, faction character is just that based precisely on how they choose to structure it. Anything stating otherwise is, at best, obfuscation of that fact.
Or else an outright lie, if not additionally a gross display of cluelessness as to the inner workings of their own game(s).
This is likewise a clear indication of holdover from the RPG mindset.
And if the "lists provided in the Alpha are never supposed to be the be all and end all of the lists." why were the loadouts of the inconsistently named variants mentioned as being "locked in" by this same person when queried on it? Because the unit availability there was determined precisely by that carried equipment and how powerful or not powerful players perceived it to be.
Those numbers probably aren't going to change all that much, unless the game goes back to the days of examples such as the all-MBZK Northern Airborne squadron and RtCE GP squadron, or similar obviously unbalanced combat groups.
I notice they've also held starting any lists until after "Alpha review," which is also coincidentally when the last Blitz-era primary faction update is supposed to be released.
ferrous wrote: The way the Blitz rules work, the game is at it's worst with all vanilla troops, especially for new players, since the weapons are so anemic that you could fire at each other every round and have nothing happen. If you take a look at most of the lists posted in the army building section and count the number of Jägers and Hunters in them, the great majority of them come up zero.
warboss wrote: [..]can encourage you to buy more models. My fear is that they'll only accomplish the latter.
True, except we don't play our games the way TPTB folks do, because they consider a snub an acceptable match for a LBZK in those 3 vs 3 demo games.
I find it quite strange that the upper tier Pod folks are always insistent that the vanilla models remain by enforcing them as starting builds even when constantly told players immediately swap them out if possible - yet at the same time the Pod specifically focuses each product on weighting access to the new models within that are created to showcase that faction.
And it's certainly not as if they're afraid to prune the product line, count models "as another," or create unbalanced combat groups and models from faction to faction, all essentially at whim.
Balance wrote: It at least was a goal, but no clue if it's working or not.
warboss wrote: I haven't read the latest two variants and haven't played even longer than that so I can't comment for sure but we seem to be approaching blitz levels of grit again from a casual glance.
ferrous wrote: And it looked like from the beginning that it might not really be the case, some of the new rules looked more complicated than the old ones, like offboard support
Oh good, I'm glad I'm not the only one. Every time I did glance through the Alpha rules I kept having this strange impression I was only seeing Blitz reworded into another form, with all of the things that were supposed to speed up play simply pasted over it.
I definitely agree with you on all of that. They want players to keep buying miniatures from their monopoly over the title, but continually keep going out of their way to hinder that very same process.
And Prophet forbid you ever dare to point that out at any time.
To bring a bit of balance to the discussion - they do need to keep you buying miniatures. That's what they do - they are a miniatures wargaming company. If you aren't buying miniatures, you're not helping to keep their doors open. Some element of that should be expected, but good marketing is making sure that as few players as possible notice
This is likewise a clear indication of holdover from the RPG mindset.
That, and the continuing desire to try to 'bridge the gap' between the RPG and minis markets so that the solution can be sold to both camps. They should be willing to retcon or reboot concepts like faction identity or model disposition in order to make a profitable wargames line, but seem to want to keep as much as possible of the old fluff intact. Having more distinct factions would go a long way towards helping them understand which are profitable, which are not and where could put their dollars, but right now with the mega factions of North and South being essentially one 'glob' it's a hard way forward. There are some unique models in each faction, but lots of bleed over, which made sense in the RPG setting but a bit less in the minis side. Different faction identities breed cross-pollination, if it's done well.
I find it quite strange that the upper tier Pod folks are always insistent that the vanilla models remain by enforcing them as starting builds even when constantly told players immediately swap them out if possible - yet at the same time the Pod specifically focuses each product on weighting access to the new models within that are created to showcase that faction.
At some point during the Alpha, this was most certainly not the case. A Hunter and a Jaguar were priced identically because while the Jaguar was situationally better the Hunter was tougher overall and that tended to balance out. After playing 20+ speed matches (3v3, 24" board, no objectives) of the various permutations of Hunter v. Jaguar, Jager v. Black Mamba it was hard to choose between the Hunter and Jaguar at the same price point, while the Mamba's armor edged it as slightly more potent. The augment system wasn't as 'forceful' as the modifiers, so the difference between Jaguar and Hunter was subtle. The Jaguar had better Augs, and a heavier AC, but the Hunter could take more hits before being damaged - which greatly reduced your effectiveness - which tended to win as many matches as the Jaguar's greater firepower. The Mamba's higher AC and Armor tended to win those style of matches, but it was often a close one; there were very few blowouts.
Going into MechaAttack (my house rules that became the Alpha) that was a direct requirement; that the vanilla trooper be able to inflict damage on a vanilla trooper > 60% of the time in a normal situation. Which meant the mechanics were setup such that at 18", you tended to do at least 1 point of damage > 60% of the time in an equivalent matchup. This very much toned down the potency of the 'elite' gears (which was intentional) which was something that I know received negative feedback. Some people liked that their Jaguars / Mambas could be in the open at top speed and effectively could not be killed, which always sat wrong with me. The fluff depicts Gears as needing to use cover and be smart, so the system was initially setup that way. What it is now, I don't know, but I'm saddened if that's not been carried through and things are reverting to the 'stalemate' in most cases.
I frankly don't think either of them needs that many and should be cut down to 4 max. Most of the extras are just "filler" with the core set + a polar faction.
I can see a rationale behind the NuCoal sub-factions, given that it's largely composed of city-states in a loose alliance. But Peace River's overflow of groups just seems flat out silly. And even in NuCoal's case, most of the groups should be pretty much the same. imo, the proper way to handle NuCoal's sub-groups would be to treat them the same way that named units were treated in the current edition.
The same logic that produced the Peace River groups should also be producing the exact same set of groups for each of the Polar sub-factions.
I frankly don't think either of them needs that many and should be cut down to 4 max. Most of the extras are just "filler" with the core set + a polar faction.
I can see a rationale behind the NuCoal sub-factions, given that it's largely composed of city-states in a loose alliance. But Peace River's overflow of groups just seems flat out silly. And even in NuCoal's case, most of the groups should be pretty much the same. imo, the proper way to handle NuCoal's sub-groups would be to treat them the same way that named units were treated in the current edition.
The same logic that produced the Peace River groups should also be producing the exact same set of groups for each of the Polar sub-factions.
Agreed. I find it ridiculous that Paxton gets an entire sublist for their "special forces" (and even multiple lists depending on how you view the also elite HGSF) when the Legion Noire gets diddly squat at the same time. Feel free to post in the DP9 thread on the matter.
I've already posted my manifestos there but additional viewpoints from other players might help. IN any case, any justification you give for Paxton to get stuff beyond 2-3 lists applies even MORESO to polar factions yet they get nothing. It isn't surprising though given the mary sue unfair nature of Blood Debt and the batpoop crazy design theories I was told during playtesting. Apparently, the north and south get just as much as paxton because they can buy more models. It's ok for a paxton player to get MUCH MORE utility out of their box of minis compared with a polar player who paid just as much for his/her box because the polar player can buy different minis. Yes, the special ability of the polar forces according to an influential person in the design process is their ability to have you spend more money on other figures. Much like in George Orwell's animal farm, not all $50 purchases are created equal and it was a purposeful design GOAL during development to give certain players more bang for each dollar. It of course doesn't hurt if the designer making the decision to get more bang for the buck of one faction plays THAT faction exclusively. That type of "some animals are more equal than others" mentality has unfortunately continued into the alpha with the army sublists' selective choice of faction variety and previously with the gear stats of some gears getting huge power boosts for literally no costs (but that has been at least partially remedied ONLY after being caught and shamed in public).
IceRaptor wrote: To bring a bit of balance to the discussion - they do need to keep you buying miniatures. That's what they do - they are a miniatures wargaming company. If you aren't buying miniatures, you're not helping to keep their doors open.
True, selling miniatures is a good thing.
Except, the Pod is always going about that process in the most utterly bizarre, futile, and/or counterproductive way(s) possible.
IceRaptor wrote: They should be willing to retcon or reboot concepts like faction identity or model disposition in order to make a profitable wargames line, but seem to want to keep as much as possible of the old fluff intact.
I don't even know what to make of that anymore.
TPTB will arbitrarily change something based on essentially nonsense comments without stopping to think whether or not it will be a good idea, or slash apart a previous attempt without trying to understand what the goal was even if it gave them virtually everything they wanted, time and time again all for an inclusion of the moment that may or may not even sell, let alone ever get produced.
Not to mention they are just as likely to immediately turn around and try to keep enforcing a completely different paradigm that players understand to be wholly sub-optimal when used within the company's own ruleset.
Yet the company clearly, and obviously, has no problem whatsoever changing things whenever it suits them to do so, and they still quite often try do all of these things I mentioned at the same time, practicality be damned.
In the end it's proven essentially impossible to tell in any given moment which way the flag is currently veering at Pod central.
IIRC it was Hudsond who commented earlier in this topic about how the only "vision" the company seems to cling to during this continuous farce they call doing business is an uncompromising stance against having any vision at all in the first place.
IceRaptor wrote: At some point during the Alpha, this was most certainly not the case.
My post was pretty much just venting on HGB, and not the rules revamp based on your work, sorry for the miscommunication there.
warboss wrote: Apparently, the north and south get just as much as paxton because they can buy more models.
I can't honestly say that will still be the case.
It's still going to be a field guide "mess," which probably goes without saying based on the previous three, but workable at least used to figure into that.
Hell, I never even saw the "completed" datacards beyond the few that ended up in the FSG, nor was I ever consulted on any of them after turn-in.
That right there might, just, you know, have like some kind of minute affect on the end product.....
Eumerin wrote: I can see a rationale behind the NuCoal sub-factions, given that it's largely composed of city-states in a loose alliance.
Up to a point, yes, but...
Wouldn't that apply just as much to every city-state of every league on Terra Nova, northern or southern? Most are as different as different can get!
Only armies played by influential folks at DP9 get that kind of stuff. Everyone knows the HMA fire support squads are identical with Cat's Eye recon squads in their respective regiments! The difference between them is nothing compared to the difference between the Paxton regiment from the left side of the Peace River crater and the one on the right side of the Peace River crater. Dp9 operates selectively for only certain factions on the same theory as the comical Left TWIX and Right TWIX factory commercials running here in the US.
Just how many different models do they think each of these factions even has to create all of these sub-lists with, if that ever entered into consideration in the first place?
Creating multitudes of variants is not the same thing at all.
The Pod does not have the model variety they seem to think they have IME, especially given all of the models that were made to "count as" in the v5 rules.
I don't know if that will be able to stand or not when making the sub-lists as they have them planned.
Aside from limited availability trash like the rally models and the gear-striders, they've been lucky to introduce one actual new model per project the last ~fourish years post-TPS, a couple of which were also limited availability.
And I'm not even sure the few new ones from Lion's Wrath are going to make it to publication.
Although, to be fair, I suppose the company probably couldn't manage to sell any new conventional vehicles given what they would charge for them on an individual basis.
Everything in that vein has only been "rule of cool - $$$ grab" stuff like the hoppers and Barnaby, with just resculpts for previous existing vehicles.
Eumerin wrote: I can see a rationale behind the NuCoal sub-factions, given that it's largely composed of city-states in a loose alliance.
Up to a point, yes, but...
Wouldn't that apply just as much to every city-state of every league on Terra Nova, northern or southern? Most are as different as different can get!
Not necessarily. NuCoal is a bunch of otherwise independent city-states banded together strictly for defensive purposes. Each city-state still more or less runs its own show. Under that argument, you could justify giving each city its own army list.
The cities in the North and the South are all part of larger nations. Unit composition will be quite similar among the various military units within the same nation, regardless of which city the unit itself is based on. One NorLight unit should be more or less like another NorLight unit.
Now having said that...
As I mentioned, I think the best way to go would be to treat each individual NuCoal city state (except for maybe Port Arthur, if they're being lumped in with NuCoal) the same way as the distinctive regiments were treated in the current edition of the game. i.e. as units built using the standard template, but with a few tweaks here and there to give the units more flavor. They're all drawing from more or less the same base of equipment, and it's not as if any of the individual city states is rich enough to completely break the mold. Their choices are probably going to be heavily constrained by the available budget, which realistically would generate a certain amount of uniformity across the board.
Getting back to Paxton, the differing releases actually sound like what the old priority system of list building was designed to represent. You want a general peace keeping team, then you build a priority rating 1 list. If you want a spec ops raiders list, then you go with priority rating 4. Are they throwing out the priority system in the new rules?
Feel free to post in the DP9 thread on the matter.
I suppose I could. And I might. But I doubt it. I just can't seem to work up any enthusiasm for the game at this point, given all of the past nonsense with the Pod.
My mecha enthusiasm at this point is largely being directed toward the release of Mekton Zero this year.
Not necessarily. NuCoal is a bunch of otherwise independent city-states banded together strictly for defensive purposes. Each city-state still more or less runs its own show. Under that argument, you could justify giving each city its own army list.
So... exactly as you could with the polar city states, then? Where you have representative democracies, participative democracies, corporate states, revisionist teocracies, bureocratic states and hereditary aristocracies in the very same league? (And that was the NLC, which with their revisionist leanings is arguably the most homogeneus of the leagues, not the least one).
The fact of the thing is that the leagues are actually much more diverse than the NuCoal, and their armies have actually had enough history to be very, very, very distinctive between divisions and regiments, whereas the NuCoal army, being basically mint, should be much more homogeneous.
The cities in the North and the South are all part of larger nations. Unit composition will be quite similar among the various military units within the same nation, regardless of which city the unit itself is based on. One NorLight unit should be more or less like another NorLight unit.
Nope. As I said, the city states of the polar leagues are as diverse (if not much more) than the NuCoal ones, and other than the NorGuard, which is more standarized (and even there there's the loaned units from the leagues) and the MILICIA to an extent (but there variation is much more severe between regiments), the polar armies are just so much bigger and come from a so much more diverse pool that their armies should actually have much, much, MUCH more variation than NuCoal or (particularly) Paxton.
Ugh, NuCoal was a slap to the face of existing factions and to what little fluff there was. Not as bad as the new PRDF book in power creep, but still irked me no end. Also, for all their talk of promoting greater diversity in gear selection, why does every single faction have to have an elite gear that is almost a complete mirror of one another? The Cuirasser does not need to exist, NuCoal could've easily stood on its own without it.
Albertorius wrote: Nope. As I said, the city states of the polar leagues are as diverse (if not much more) than the NuCoal ones, and other than the NorGuard, which is more standarized (and even there there's the loaned units from the leagues) and the MILICIA to an extent (but there variation is much more severe between regiments), the polar armies are just so much bigger and come from a so much more diverse pool that their armies should actually have much, much, MUCH more variation than NuCoal or (particularly) Paxton.
The individual city state governments and cultures are irrelevant. What it comes down to is two things -
1.) Who's signing the checks for the military?
2.) Who's handling the logistical end of things?
While it's possible that some of the Northern and Southern city-states perform the item #1, such things are typically (i.e. in most settings) the province of the national government. And item #2 is important because unusual gears (to pick something random and silly, Jagers in a WFP unit) are going to require specialized supply set-ups in order to get basic things such as spare parts and tools. Even assuming that the city states are signing their own checks for purchases for the local units, decisions at the national level regarding units in use are going to influence what the locals pick because it's important to have a certain amount of cohesion with the rest of the nation. If a unit stationed at Fort Henry is rotated down to the border, then it's important that the unit can be easily supported by the WFP's logistical network with a minimum of disruption. That doesn't rule out very odd units, such as the Drop Bears, but it does mean that units like that will tend to be rare.
As each city in the North and South is part of a larger nation, units will tend to be very similar (depending on the unit's function, of course).
...you do realize that both 1) and 2) apply as much to the NuCoal and Paxton as to anyone else, don't you? Because it's exactly the same, FFS.
Even retconned as it is (or in the case of the NSDF, especially as retconned as it has been), the Perfect Storm book clearly states that " Riding the wave of popular support for the newly formed NSDF, the members of NuCoal chose to aggressively standardize and modernize their equipment, personnel and facilities".
I see it as a by product of trying to FORCE variety into minis lineups that can't support them. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well. Then with Paxton, you have some obvious favoritism thrown in on top of that with them not even bothering to pay anything for a myriad of abilities and stat increases.
If the north PDF comes out and there aren't FREE stat buffs that everyone else needs to pay for with BOTH tv and vet slots, it'll be a verification of the favoritism applied to a certain faction played exclusively by the person who developed them. Paxton gets immunity to crossfire for free so... following that trend... EVERY northern unit should get immunity to IF def penalties for free, right? Since Paxton gets half priced support airstrikes, the north should get half priced artillery strikes, right? Free LD and EW boosts for CGLs that aren't paid for (although that has been partly corrected with the last update but not completely... and none of them pay the vet slot cost others have to pay)... Free Detect stat upgrades for gears for only 1TV seems fair since Paxton got it... heck, it's not like it's the third most important stat in the game and the VCS criminally undercosts it, right? Of course, I'm just basing the above theories about the northern PDF on the paxton one which is public knowledge. If the northern PDF ends up instead at the same level as FIF and TPS (which I personally consider on par with each other overall), then the bias will be clear.
Do they have the cheesy power armor that was in the Alpha? Because PRDF was really lacking, and totally needed infantry that was better than GRELs, and made golems look even more stupid and pointless.
Hopefully! If Paxton pays nothing to make their STANDARD infantry immune to crossfire AND have +1 armor, I await the northern infantry that will be +1 armor and immune to IF penalties for no cost. Of course, judging from the support PDF with the engineering and medic units, ONLY paxton gets something repeatedly for nothing. This grand tradition was carried over to the initial alpha stats as well as the preferential treatment they'll apparently get in regards to sublists for such a relatively tiny faction. I guess the most important thing about choosing an army is making sure that you check ahead of time who at DP9 (if anyone!) plays them. The discrepancy about the EXACT SAME support units not paying anything for multiple benefits for a single faction was ABSOLUTELY brought up both to Robert and others to no effect (since that product is out in the wild, my NDA doesn't cover it anymore). In that case, they couldn't even hide behind the VCS because the infantry squads are IDENTICAL except where they're simply better for no cost with Paxton. As Hudson said, they simply don't care (or, more accurately in the case of one person, they care only to make sure that one faction gets all the benefits they can at little to no cost while the others don't care).
ferrous wrote: Do they have the cheesy power armor that was in the Alpha? Because PRDF was really lacking, and totally needed infantry that was better than GRELs, and made golems look even more stupid and pointless.
Hey, when your normal infantry is already better than everyone else's multiple ways for no cost, you need to somehow make the elite ones different! Come one, guys. You're not approaching this issue of balance correctly! The pigs.. I mean Paxton... need to sleep in the farmer's house!
warboss wrote: Hopefully! If Paxton pays nothing to make their STANDARD infantry immune to crossfire AND have +1 armor, I await the northern infantry that will be +1 armor and immune to IF penalties for no cost. Of course, judging from the support PDF with the engineering and medic units, ONLY paxton gets something repeatedly for nothing. This grand tradition was carried over to the initial alpha stats as well as the preferential treatment they'll apparently get in regards to sublists for such a relatively tiny faction. I guess the most important thing about choosing an army is making sure that you check ahead of time who at DP9 (if anyone!) plays them. The discrepancy about the EXACT SAME support units not paying anything for multiple benefits for a single faction was ABSOLUTELY brought up both to Robert and others to no effect (since that product is out in the wild, my NDA doesn't cover it anymore). In that case, they couldn't even hide behind the VCS because the infantry squads are IDENTICAL except where they're simply better for no cost with Paxton. As Hudson said, they simply don't care (or, more accurately in the case of one person, they care only to make sure that one faction gets all the benefits they can at little to no cost while the others don't care).
Yeah, I didn't mind the immune to crossfire stuff back when they were a subpar force, saddled with overpriced models, or elite models that weren't exactly the same as all the other models. (Which DP9, for all its complaining about differentiation, seemed determined to give everyone the same exact elite model)
But then the new book made them stupidly power creeped, and gave them a slew of options they shouldn't have. Hover gears, sure why not? They've no reason to have them, but for a designers whims. Half surprised they didn't end up with triple linked MRPs.
