Tales from Terra Nova Issue 1

A while back, I posted a comic book style report of my last Heavy Gear game (which occured a while before the post too!) and mentioned that I was trying to figure out how to publish a PDF version of the complete report instead of the more disjointed single images.  In the intervening years, I've figured out how to do that thanks to my efforts with my SHIELDS UP! Star Trek house rules so I figured I'd finally post the full pdf version of my battle report.  Please note that the game took place prior to the release of the current rules so may reference mechanics no longer used in Heavy Gear in addition to my own FLASH! house rules.

Tales From Terra Nova PDF Link

FLASH! Movement Rules

I figured I'd try to incorporate the alpha style movement rules into my FLASH! house rules in regards to the lack of movement dice.  Basically, you're counted as being at combat speed for modifiers outside of your own turn unless you hold an action for later use (like standby for coordinates).  This cuts down on the chit and dice clutter on the tabletop as the vast majority of units don't need to have a movement die next to them.  Instead, the movmeent die counts as a withheld action tracker so you know that the model still has an action to use despite already being activated and simultaneously at what speed.  In effect, your model stops to use whatever speed you want during your activation and then returns to combat speed after unless you "hold" an action for later.  I tried this out during the game this weekend and it worked well.  It made taking stationary shots a bit safer but cut down on the near invulnerability of fast moving elite units conversely which is a much more important change.  My cheetah at top speed moving across the field actually got pegged with an average roll because it "only" had a +2 instead of a +3 to defense rolls base.

Movement:  Your model is always considered to be at combat speed for all purposes outside of it's activation unless you use withhold an action for later use like with standby for coordinates or reaction fire.  Place one die at the appropriate speed for each "reserved" action to be used after the model's activation.  Reaction fire prior to activation is still resolved at combat speed.

 I also finished putting together and priming my NuCoal veteran GP squad over the weekend but didn't have enough time to paint them so didn't use them in my recent test game which instead featured a more traditional North vs South engagement.  I decided to completely vet out my gearhunter squad with 2x Lbzk and 2x MACs for use as snipers and flankers.  I really like the Chasseur MkII models with the only complaint being that I kind of wish the heads were a bit different and not just Jaeger copies (maybe something like the CV model head for all of them?)   The sculpts and casting overall were nice but I did have one sheared leg broken at the knee (no big deal as I had 6 models in 3 blistes for a 5 man squad) and two of the LRPs were miscast (again no big deal as every HG player tends to have extra LRPs).

 I'll hopefully be painting these bad boys up soon as the final planned painted additions to my HG army.  I don't have any more southern or nucoal models left to paint once I'm done so I'm only left with about a dozen various gears for my north.  Until I actually get regular games going, I don't plan on painting up the northern models any time soon.  No fears though seeing as how I should at some point (fingers crossed!) be finally getting my Robotech minis (or at least the 1/3 portion they shifted to "wave 1" after an 8 month delay and counting) that I'll be working on and posting about for the blog.

State of the Blog Address (Part 2)

Thanks for bearing with the last post and I promise this one will be a bit more upbeat since I plan to focus on the hobby progress I've made over the past year.  While honestly it didn't seem like I accomplished much due to months long stretches of not working on any minis (and having paint dry up unexpectedly during that time!), I was pleasantly surprised by what I accomplished in the meantime. 


I pretty much finished up (except for less than a half dozen figs) my entire 40k collection and mostly sold off the stuff that I never planned on finishing.  My 6000pt Blood Angel, 2500pt Deathwing, 2500pt IG, 3000pt Eldar, and 2500pt Tau armies are officially done except for two figures.  The only other 40k related things I have left are 5 "truescale" marines that I kitbashed back when I was attempting to run a regularly scheduled Deathwatch 40k RPG campaign that has since sputtered out.  Mainly due to a lack of HG playerbase and the Robotech KS delay, 40k has actually been my second most frequently played game after X-wing. 


Over in HG land, I've made some significant progress.  I sold off my unwanted southern minis and actually finished the ones that I picked up post Forged in Fire.  My Heavy Assault King Cobra squad is done as is my platoon of Visigoth Khan tanks.  My support options models (airstrikes and turrets) were also completed along with a cityscape set from Dropzone Commander to use as terrain.  My Nucoal army went from completely in the blister due 2/3 done with two squads of hovertanks along with two sections of hoverbike GREL infantry.  The only Nucoal models left are my Chasseur MK2's that will make up a veteran GP squad.  I picked up a painted northern army as well and then spent a lot of time dealing with the dozens of breaks (and even a few missing parts) due to very, very poor packing for shipping.  I've picked up more northern minis (likely too many for blitz!) that are still unfortunately in the package though.  With the delay of Robotech, I had expected to instead work on my Northern minis but the 3 month delay and counting since the advertised Jan delivery date has put a damper on that.  Despite being a playtester, I don't know how much the product changes after it leaves our hands so I'm avoiding putting together the models until I see what the final pdf looks like.


X-wing is a pre-assembled and prepainted game so there isn't too much of a hobby aspect in that sense but I managed to get into some trouble with it anyways.  After reading some interesting reports over on Board Game Geek, I decided to make my own version of the Corellian Corvette model and rules.  I picked up an old 1990's toy in roughly the same scale and made a custom base to place it on along with some datacards and scenario rules.  Additionally, I made some 3D asteroids out of lava rocks to use during games.  At some point, I'd like to convert my TIE Advanced into Avengers but I'll likely leave that one till after the TIE Defender model comes out as that will be their squadron commander.  At that point, all my favorite LucasArts XvT models will be out and I'll be a happy starfighter pilot.


All in all, I'd say that the past year (or technically about 16 months) has been quite productive despite the relatively large gaps.  Over the next couple of weeks, I plan to finish my 40k figs and might post them here.  I'm going back and forth whether I should buy any more as I think GW has officially gone bonkers with their recent pricing but the new tau commander crisis suit looks pretty darn incredible.  As a grimdark mech, I'll post about that one if I end up acquiring and working on it.  Additionally, I hope to finish my truescale Deathwatch marines along with a kitbashed Aegis defense line and turret.  After that, assuming the Northern book doesn't come out, I'll work on my TIE Avengers and possibly the Nucoal GP squad. 


In any case, thanks again for reading and I promise the next update won't be a solid wall of text but rather filled with pretty pictures of mediocre painted minis like usual!  :)

State of the Blog Address (Part 1)

I was checking out my blog links to see what new stuff other bloggers added and I realized that I completely missed the first anniversary of my blog earlier this year.  To celebrate the passing of that first year, I decided to follow the US government tradition of posting a "State of the Blog Address" going over the past year and my hopes for the coming year.


When I started the blog last February, my goal was to focus on my house rules for improving the Heavy Gear Blitz game under my catchy little "Flash" title.  At the time, I had some ideas that I wanted to publish before getting involved in some official playtesting which would possibly limit what I could post due to the likely NDA.  I've been burned before in the past by Heavy Gear and DP9 making bad decisions (like flipflopping through rules editions and dropping the old RAFM scale gears unceremoniously) so I figured I'd try to get more involved and hopefully prevent another debacle especially given the relatively poor (and deserved) reception the Forged in Fire Southern Field Guide got.


I'd say that I definitely met my goals for improving the blitz game.  Though the rules went  a bit further than I initially had planned and still need some more testing, I'm happy with the overall final results.  In the end, it doesn't seem like anything will be incorporated into the next HG edition due to the vastly different rules in open alpha right now.  I actually joined the alpha in the spring of last year (right around the time I stopped posting large updates to the FLASH! rules and switched to modeling!) so the scope of the changes were not a shock to me this past January.  I think that the core rules have a lot of promise but obviously still need work.  Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the army lists, there still exists plenty of room to screw up the whole endeavor.  As for Blitz, I got involved in the Northern playtesting as well and anxiously await the release of that final product for the venerable Silhouette system.  Just don't expect it to be as broken, unfair, and overpowered as the Paxton release for several reasons.  The most important is that the lead playtester's primary faction is Paxton so they naturally got the best stuff (and paid nothing for it frequently) but also because cooler heads were involved in the development of the Northern book.  The north was originally my faction back in the old RAFM 1st edition days and I worked on a northern army over the past year as well... but the difference is that I view army guides that I play no differently than ones I don't so I tried to keep that in mind while still trying to give it a unique feel.  I have no idea when the North guide will finally come out (the January release has slowly crept into April now and counting) and I'm not entirely happy with the results (especially one very key aspect) but I would like to see HGB given its last hurrah before the release of the Beta files this summer. 


The other big game that I expected to cover frequently this year was Robotech Tactics.  Unfortunately, absolutely nothing has gone right since the end of the kickstarter for that game.  Only a few days after taking pledger money, Palladium announced that they were releasing convention only minis that people had been clamoring for but excluding backers from getting them via the upcoming pledge manager.  A contest run during the KS to design ace veritech paint schemes ended up running 6 months late and only had a single winner instead of multiple.  Everything was just fine and dandy with empty platitudes about how things were progressing for months until just 4 weeks before the October delivery estimate (revised just days after the end of the KS) at which point it was delayed till January/February. 


Since then, the project feels like its just treading water with the delivery date now at June/July and counting and frankly that date looks incredibly unlikely given that no moulds have even been started on.  The rules have not and apparently won't be previewed so they're another big question given Palladium's very poor (to put it mildly) history of RPG rules.  We're finally seeing prototype minis but the part count is ridiculous (30+ pieces for 40k terminator sized figures) and the seams between the parts almost exclusively run RIGHT ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE MODEL WITH BIG GAPS.  The TL;DR version is cheap looking overly complicated models that will come out at best 8 months late.  I've avoided talking too much about Robotech because I don't want the blog to turn into my private whine fest but it deserves mention in this end of the year post as I had expected to cover the game significantly over the past year but haven't been able to. 


That's it for part one of the State of the Blog address where I cover things overall.   Part 2 will deal with what I've done hobbywise during the past year.  Thanks for reading and bearing with me in the meantime.  :)

Combat Group Construction v2.0

 I've gotten some feedback in the past that conversion to the FLASH! smaller style combat groups was a bit difficult to figure out.  Over the weekend, I played a game of blitz and was chatting afterwards with my opponent and had some ideas about how to make the construction simpler as well as reducing the overabundance of "veteran" units in blitz (every one of both our models were vets with Att/Def3 making the upgrade somewhat useless as it was the new standard).  

For army construction, I've decided to try out the following.

For vehicle and gear combat groups in Blitz, construct your Blitz combat group as normal initially and then use the following conversion to fireteams.
1-2 model CG in Blitz: 1 model (CGL) combat group in FLASH!

3-4 model CG in Blitz: 2 model combat group (CGL plus one of your choice)  in FLASH!

5-6 model CG in Blitz: 3 model combat group (CGL plus two of your choice) in FLASH!

7+ model CG in Blitz: 4 model combat group (CGL plus three of your choice) in FLASH!

 You may choose any models you have in your full blitz squad keeping in mind that models using veteran upgrades must spend a veteran slot to do so per the rules below. Combat groups containing combined models (like infantry) are unchanged from Blitz. Before taking another Fire Team of the same type, you must take a second combat sub-group with your remaining models (if any) from the first Blitz combat group.  For example, selecting a Blitz two tank squadron gives you a single model in FLASH! (the CGL).  If in Blitz you upgraded the tank squadron to 3 models by adding an extra tank, the FLASH! version would be 2 models instead (CGL and one of your choice).  If you wanted to add a second tank squadron of the same type, you'd have to first take a second combat group consisting of the remaining tank you didn't take above in both examples.

My original intent was to make the fire teams half size mirrors of the full blitz versions but that seems to have lead to some confusion unfortunately.  I've rarely seen bog standard models in games unless those bog standard models were quite special to begin with (like my opponent's Fer de Lances this past game) so why fight the inevitable.  The above instead lets you just cherry pick whatever you want from blitz instead of being a half size version with the caveat that you must "complete" the original blitz squad

As for veteran slots, I've decided to try changing the veteran slot effect to applying only to a single model instead of the whole squad.  With the ability to cherry pick the models, this seems like killing two birds with one stone.  It limits the overpowered possiblities inherent to cherry picking upgraded models somewhat and also grounds the game a bit more at att/def2 without everyone fielding extra sturdy boxes.

Veteran Slots: You get a number of veteran slots equal to your army PL in Flash!. Each slot may be used to upgrade a single model to veteran status and unlock veteran options for it. (i.e. a single gear or a single squad of infantry is upgraded for each vet slot spent).   You may buy extra veteran slots at the cost of 2 SP per veteran slot.  

You can still take a fair number of veteran upgrades (PL4 gives you 7 in a 1000TV game which is the upper limit roughly for my skirmish houserules) but you're giving up all your SP to get to that point.  Honestly, I think att/def3 and extra sturdy boxes should be more expensive but changing TV is going beyond what I'd like to do with my blog and would prefer to leave that to DP9 themselves.

As usual, let me know if you try any of the above or whether you think it's an improvement.  I'm leaving the original army construction rules in the table of contents to the right for the time being to aid in comparison but hope to eventually change the chapter once I get some feedback.

Tales from Terra Nova! Battle Report

I recently ran a demo game for a couple of new players at the FLGS and figured I'd try to document it with a new style of battle report.  Here you have a 600TV roughly game on a 3'x4' urban table using the standard Heavy Gear Blitz rules but my Flash! smaller combat groups.  Hopefully this won't break blogspot!  :)

Edit:  It took a few years but I finally figured out and got around to converting the Tales from Terra Nova Issue #1 Battle Report to a single downloadable pdf.   You can find it here.

Mass Battle Trial Rules

So far, all the houserules I've presented in my Flash! blog have been to (hopefully) make the game quicker and easier to play at the skirmish level as I feel the current rules fit best in that model count type game. That said.. there will always be people who prefer playing larger games of Heavy Gear (including myself frequently) and I hope that the following will help with that at least partially. One of the strengths of Heavy Gear is the incredible freedom it gives to players compared with other games like Warhammer 40,000. Unfortunately, that freedom also invariably leads to bogging down the game partly at 1000TV+. Any effort to try and streamline the game beyond the already presented rules already presented in the blog will reduce that complete freedom.

Previous FLASH! Rules:  Do NOT use the fireteam squad building variants but rather build your army exactly as presented in your Field Guide; otherwise continue using the other rules like datacards as presented in previous chapters.  The rules below may also be used independently of the previous FLASH! rules as noted below.

Squad Coherency: If a non-infantry squad consists of more than one model, they must be within 3" + 1"x EL (minimum 3") of another model in the squad at the end of the squad's activation. Use the highest EL stat of the models involved. If casulties result in a model becoming out of coherency, you must move that model back into coherency on its next activation. If you are not using my variant stats, you must be within autocomm range of another model in the squad.

Moving/Firing: Upon squad activation, you declare one speed for the entire squad instead of individually per model and each model in the squad must be capable of moving that speed. Use a single movement indicator next to the CGL (or other model if the CGL is dead) instead of one per model. When the first model in your squad is ready to fire, you must declare a single enemy squad as the target for your ENTIRE squad's firing. You may choose any model in that squad as the initial target and your activated models in that squad must fire on that target until it is destroyed. Once it is destroyed, you may select another model in that target squad as the next target until you run out of models in the target squad or your own squad's actions.

Split Fire! (NEW ACTION): If your CGL (or 2iiC if the CGL is dead) declares this action, you may instead declare two speeds and/or two squads as targets of your squads fire. In this case, you must mark the movement individually per model in the squad as per the normal Blitz rules.

ECM: Electronic warfare is tablewide in the mass battle rules and not directed at countering a single enemy action. A model with the ECM trait may declare it is using it as an action. Roll the EW skill (modified by EL) versus a TN 6. If successful, you may add your ECM rating to the target number of any enemy EW tests made. The ECM penalty is cummulative and multiple models may add them together. If no test is required for an EL action due to another rule (like being within a number of inches equal to size to detect an enemy), this penalty has no effect. You may also as a reaction or even pre-emptively declare an action to use defensive ECM as well. In this case, you make the same EW test above and subtract it your ECM rating from any enemy ECM during that turn. If you are not using my variant stat card rules, you instead roll your EW (+/- Comm) to use the table wide counter measures and add your ECM rating for offensive actions or ECCM for defensive actions.

Take the above with even more grains of salt that previous entries as I haven't tried them yet in a real game but rather only in preliminary solo games.  If you try them out, feel free to post the results and your thoughts in the comments.

New Flash! Wargame House Rules coming up!

Hey guys and gals, just a quick update here.  Sometime in the next week, I'll be starting a new chapter of my Flash! houserules dealing specifically with larger games of Heavy Gear (1000TV+).  So far, my variant rules have dealt with making the game quicker and more fun on a smaller skirmish scale but the next few posts will deal with doing the same on a larger one.  Some of the ultimate freedom inherent in Blitz will fall by the wayside but that same infinite selection of choices is a large part of the slowdown commonplace in larger games.  The upcoming wargame rules will use standard Blitz squad formations instead of the skirmish specific Fire Teams in my Flash rules but will streamline some of the mass combat rules and options for quicker and (hopefully) more fun large scale games.  I've had the ideas stirring for quite a few months and look forward to some feedback on how they play.

On the hobby side, I've recently picked up a painted Northern army as my OpFor in demo games.  They're not unfortunately ready for close up pics though as the padding/packing on the army was suboptimal to say the least.  Over 40 individual parts broke and another 5 bits were just missing.  On the plus side, the seller was very good with communication and quite the gentleman in making amends which made up for most of the frustration of getting a box of loose bits instead of a completed army.  I've got some unexpected hobby work to do with the force but I hope to put up an Interpolar War battle report complete with pics after the wargame houserules are published.

Finally, it was brought to my attention by a fellow blogger that it's difficult to sign up to follow the blog so I've connected the blog to Google Plus and added the follower widget to the site (as well as RSS links).  Just click on the widget and choose the "follower" circle if you'd like to go that route.

Linked Weapons and IF

An interesting discussion started last week as a result of the GU6 release that gave me some fresh ideas on how to approach further changes.

The first is regarding indirect fire.  I've always found it odd that mortars that can actually shoot almost straight up vertically had a minimum range requirement but artillery pieces that have a much lower max angle of elevation didn't.  The recent changes in minimum range got me thinking about that and I've decided to extend the minmum range restriction to all indirect firing weapons.  This means that most rocket pods, field guns, and other IF capable weapons will now no longer be able to fire INDIRECTLY within half their short range (remember that I've change the terms for range and "optimal" is now short).  The weapons will still however be able to fire directly within that range though.  Weapons with the actual MR trait will still not be able to fire directly and have no firing option within half short range (unchanged from Blitz! and GU).

Indirect Fire:  Add "Weapons choosing to use the indirect fire option may not fire at targets within half their short range.  The may still fire at targets at under half short range if the weapon does not have the MR trait and therefore can use the direct fire rules."

The other interesting part of the discussion was regarding how to make the linked fire rules make a bit more sense conceptually.  Right now, firing two MRP9s at full ROF plays completely differently than firing a MRP18 at full ROF despite the RPG tech explaination (and rules) of them having the exact same number of rockets firing.  In addition, firing linked weapons and rolling well is like winning the lottery as a single 6 die roll means that the rocket will do alot of damage, be either on target or deviate only a little, AND not get you an Out of Ammo result on either pod.  Feral on the DP9 forums came up with the good idea of using all the dice rolls for the results similar to how combined models work.  I really like this idea and will expand on it with the rules below.

Linked Weapons:  Weapons that have this option may be fired together as part of the same action using one of the two options below.

      -For each linked weapon fired, assign one of your rolled attack dice results to it; this result counts as the result for the attack as well as for determining out of ammo results for that weapon.  If the weapons were fired indirectly, use the highest dice roll for determining scatter for all linked weapons fired.  The defender rolls his defense dice once and applies it to each individual weapon attack roll.  Any extra attack dice results are discarded and any weapons having no available attack dice to be assigned are considered to have rolled one lower than the lowest attack die result for all purposes including both OOA and damage.   

      -Designate one weapon in the link as the primary weapon.  For each additional identical linked weapon fired, you may add half the ROF (round off) to the ROF of the primary weapon.  You may then use the modified ROF for the purposes off the attack roll that the target or targets will defend against once only for the linked attack.  Add +1 per linked weapon after the primary to the target number for OOA checks and use the highest die rolled for OOA checks for all the linked weapons fired. 

 For example, a grizzly with att2 rolls a 5 and a 3 for his linked MRP attack with full ROF using the first option above.  The defender must then roll once and determine the damage versus the 5 and 3 individually using the normal modifiers and the 3 result causes an OOA result for that one MRP. 

If the same grizzly instead had two targets 5 inches apart that it wished to attack, it could use the second option to make a singe combined ROF attack versus both models (not normally possible with the standard MRP).  Using the same dice results as above, scatter would be deternined by and the target would roll versus the single result of 5 for the linked attack.  The 5 would also be used for determining OOA for both pods which in this case would mean that they're both out of ammo (due to the +1  modifier for the check for two linked weapons).  The grizzly fired its full payload on the gamble of damaging both models. 

While the above is not perfect and does still have a bit of a lottery win feel for linked weapons (a single 6 using the second option is accurate, damaging, and has no OOA result), I think it portrays the feel of firing linked weapons on the scifi battlefield a bit more accurately as well as more in line with firing those same weapons separately using two actions.  I'll be testing the above out hopefully in the next game (and will likely use that as the primary flash! variable instead of the larger game size I was planning).

Aurora 7.2 and Gear Up! 6 updates...

Gear Up 6 has finally arrived and has changed a few things in Blitz so I thought it might be a good idea to go over the changes as they relate to my Flash! houserules.  The options presented there for upgrading the maneuver rating of Fire Support gears to 0 in various armies would be covered under my variant Fire Support Survivability rule (see right in the table of contents under optional).  Blitz has also officially limited CP refiring of weapons to just limited ammo and melee trait weapons but I don't think that goes far enough.  I considered removing my Flash! limitation of NO weapons being allowed to refire but have instead decided to keep it as is.  Also, the minimum range under the Minimum Range trait (a horrible combination of terms!) half optimal from a flat 8" has no additional effect in Flash!. 

As I didn't get the opportunity to play a demo game this past Easter weekend, I don't have too much to add at the moment.  I'm hoping to test a larger sized game (800tv) as the primary variable and the revised active/passive lock rules as a secondary one in the next game.

Finally, the Flash! combat group houserules got published in the latest issue 7.2 of Aurora, the quarterly DP9 fanzine.  The example army list format didn't turn out correctly as I had hoped due to formating but I'm glad the article was accepted nonetheless. 

http://aurora.dp9forum.com/

Weapon Range Thoughts... Part 2

EDIT:  I've combined the previous Weapon Range Thoughts post into this one as I plan to make the original the Table of Contents linked rules chapter.  Unfortunately, someone broke something at Google last week and the link lists haven't been working properly since.

In my quest for a leaner and simpler Blitz datacard (and rules), I've left only a single part of the datacard untouched... namely the weapon section. While I did incorporate model chassis firing bonuses into the individual weapon accuracy stats, I've largely left the rest untouched. While I do feel that the number of weapon traits in Blitz needs a bit of housekeeping, the multiple weapon ranges are the bigger eye sore for me personally at the moment. I've avoided changing or even discussing them until now because frankly there were bigger fish to fry with the house rules but I would like to touch on the subject now.

First off, I'm simply not a fan of the nomenclature Blitz uses for range. Optimal, suboptimal, and extreme seems like a needlessely complicated and elite way of simply saying short, medium, and long that most games instead use. For the purposes of my Flash! houserules, I'll be changing the ranges to the more easily accessible short = optimal, medium = suboptimal, and long = extreme terms. While I'm sure that there was some reason for the use of the unique terms above, I'd rather have the game and it's playstyle more easily recognizable to both wargamers and the general public alike and I think the change in terms helps with that.

Secondly, perhaps it's more of a personal issue of early onset dementia on my part but I find myself referring to the card for weapon ranges more than anything else. Most other games I've played don't have as many brackets but, if they do, they tend to be simple multiples of the same number (linear progression) instead of the quadratic progression of Blitz. I've found myself wondering how the game would play if the weapon ranges were instead simply linear multiples of the same number (thus requiring only the memorization of a single range for each weapon).

I've gone through a couple of versions of this that I'll describe below. The first would be to take some sort of average of the various Blitz numbers as the "base" number (excluding obviously the infinity ranges) and then either adding that same number or doubling the previous one for the next range bracket. Here is an example using the ubiquitous Hunter/Jaeger LRP. The LRP in blitz has optimal/suboptimal ranges of 6/24 meaning that the average would instead be 15 giving us short/medium range brackets of 15/30. That's personally too big of an optimal/short range increase in my opinion and would lead to excessive camping due to the increase in the effective range (optimal) similar to how my extra range modifiers did. Multiples of the optimal range as a base number tend to break down on the extreme ends like with VLFG (which if doubled would give you an optimal/short range bracket of 60 inches... basically the entire board for smaller 3x4 sized games).

Method 1

The first acceptable option is to just go with the optimal range number as written and then just double it for additional range brackets. This has the unfortunately tendancy of shortening the effective range for Blitz down significantly for suboptimal/medium range shots. Long range shots are also affected to a lesser extent but those frankly rarely hit except for lucky area affect deviations so I'm not as worried about that. Basically, an LRP would be 6" for no penalty (no change), -1 up to 12" at medium range (changed from 24" here in Blitz), and -2 up to 48" (changed from infinity in blitz). The LAC would be 12/24/48 and the MAC would be 18/36/72.

While this change does adversely affect optimal range 6" weapons like LRPs, RFBs, and Snub cannons, it fixes the feeling I get that the suboptimal range for other weapons is almost meaningless due to the incredible ranges (like MACs at 48" resulting in almost the whole table being in suboptimal range for non-camping gears in most games). I'm not entirely happy with this as I don't want the game to return to the rush to point blank range playstyle of L&L and the original Blitz but I've found that most people try to maneuver to optimal before firing and this only noticeably adversely affects camping FS style units (which I'm ok with frankly) and unfortunately very short ranged weapons like snub cannons in actual practice. The overall change though is still acceptable.

Method 2

The other reasonable option I thought of that still keeps thing simple is to increase the optimal range by 6" and then use that number instead as the base range and then doubling it for each additional bracket. So, in the LRP example above, the range stat would be 12". For the LAC, you'd end up with no penalty at 12", -1 at up to 24", and -2 at 48". An LAC from the same Hunter/Jaeger would have a range of 18" giving you no penalty until that point and a -1 at 36" as well as a -2 at 72". A more longer ranged ATM for instance would be 24/48/72 instead. This has the added effect of increasing the optimal/short bracket by 6" for each weapon which I'm not completely happy about frankly after my experience with the last demo. Since I feel like long range weapons are a bit too powerful currently (like camping with twin LFGs or twin/triple linked rocket packs), I'd be hesitant to give those weapons as well as every weapon an addition reason to stay further back from the enemy.

Finally, melee range and thrown weapons would stay as written ruleswise in Blitz but would just have the initial ranges listed under the entry as a reminder.


Part 2

On a completely unrelated intro note, I added the "follow the blog by email" widget to the blog a few weeks back and was wondering if anyone is using it and (if so) if it's a useful alternative to traditionally subscribing as a blog follower or just checking in every few days/weeks.  Anyways.. back to the meat of the post..

Well, the first game with new weapon ranges is done and it was a bit of a wild ride conceptually.  At first, the reduction in weapon ranges (especially the LRP) was quite disconcerting but stepping back and analyzing the situation has made me realize that it was more reactionary to a change from what I expected rather than disliking the change itself.

In general, I consider the effective range of a weapon to encompass the short and medium range bands (optimal and suboptimal for those who haven't read my previous post changing the rather clunky nomenclature).  Since my Flash! houserules promote smaller games, I've been unofficially pushing the 3'x4' size table for the smaller test games as opposed to the standard 4'x6' sized table for games of 1000TV or more.  My goal is to have a wider range of real choices amongst weapons so that the 12/48 and 18/72 ranged weapons don't necessarily dominate most games.  Ideally, I'd like for the weapons that are supposed to be long range beyond the horizon death dealers to shine in that role for both 3'x4' and 4'x6' table sizes. 

Unfortunately, the 12/48 and 18/72 weapons like the MRP tend to dominate most of the smaller sized game tables as the entire .  The diagonal on a 3'x4' table is 60" so an MRP placed in just 6" away from the corner of a deployment zone can effectively cover all of no-man's land as well as the most of the enemy deployment zone as well (all except for a roughly 6" crecent on the complete opposite deployment corner); if using the short table edge deployment (as in the pic below), it covers the entire table if placed just a few inches from it's own edge.   With that large area covered, there really isn't a need for longer ranged IF unless they offer some sort of other benefit (like stun via natural AE or an incredibly long optimal bracket).

With the changes I proposed last post in Method 1, the MRP stays the master of the midrange bombardment to cover no man's land as well as your own deployment zone where longer range mortars are at a disadvantage due to MR; at the same time it loses that across the board coverage over your enemy's deployment effect.  The commonly available 30" range weapons (like VLFG and HGM) fill that new void nicely and can reach the entirety of the 3'x4' board (including corner to corner diagonals) within medium/suboptimal range whereas the truely long range weapons (like heavy field guns) do the same on 4'x6' boards. 

To illustrate that point, I've constructed the admittedly crude diagram below showing weapon ranges of a unit placed at the front of a short side deployment zone.  Remember that with my revised range stats the next range is double the previous so an LAC is 12 short/24 medium/48 long range.  A 12" base range weapon still covers the entirety of no man's land as well as almost half the enemy's deployment zone within short/medium range whereas an 18" weapon covers the entire table within short/medium range with aggressive deployment.  Both brackets still cover all of no-man's land even with backfield deployment as well.  With this change, the corner to corner deployment bombardment becomes the specialty of longer range weapons like HGMs, LFGs, and HATMs instead of just doubling up with MRPs and AGMs/ATMs.

It takes some getting used to as the LRP and shorter ranged upgrades like snub cannons become limited to 12" or less effectiveness but I think that frankly goes with their fluff as well as previous editions of blitz (flanking tanks to get a close range shot instead of sniping from 24" with a snub as is commonly done now).  I realize (as my opponent astutely brought up) that the above likely changes the effective TV of various upgrades and units slightly (no more than 5tv per model though IMO) but I'm not ready to start tweaking them directly until I get alot more games in with my house rules.  In the end, I do like the fact that I had to make actual decisions on which weapons to use at what ranges in the most recent demo game instead of just defaulting to twin-linked MRPs for most things without much thought.    I'll likely be incorporating and adjusting the previous post to become an official chapter under my table of contents in the next few days. 

As for a preview of the next post, my opponent brought up some interesting observations regarding my cover system and had some good advice so I'll likely be revising it soon.

Weapons

In my quest for a leaner and simpler Blitz datacard (and rules), I've left only a single part of the datacard untouched... namely the weapon section.  Perhaps it's more of a personal issue of early onset dementia on my part but I find myself referring to the card for weapon ranges more than anything else. Most other games I've played don't have as many brackets but, if they do, they tend to be simple multiples of the same number (linear progression) instead of the quadratic progression of Blitz. I've found myself wondering how the game would play if the weapon ranges were instead simply linear multiples of the same number (thus requiring only the memorization of a single range for each weapon).

First off, I'm simply not a fan of the nomenclature Blitz uses for range.  Optimal, suboptimal, and extreme seems like a needlessely complicated and elite way of simply saying short, medium, and long that most games instead use.  For the purposes of my Flash! houserules, I'll be changing the ranges to the more easily accessible short = optimal, medium = suboptimal, and long = extreme terms.  While I'm sure that there was some reason for the use of the unique terms above, I'd rather have the game and it's playstyle more easily recognizable to both wargamers and the general public alike and I think the change in terms helps with that.

The option I've chosen is to just go with the optimal range number as written and then just double it for additional range brackets.  This has the unfortunately tendancy of shortening the effective range for Blitz down significantly for suboptimal/medium range shots.  Long range shots are also affected to a lesser extent but those frankly rarely hit except for lucky area affect deviations so I'm not as worried about that.  Basically, an LRP would be 6" for no penalty (no change), -1 up to 12" at medium range (changed from 24" here in Blitz), and -2 up to 48" (changed from infinity in blitz).  The LAC would be 12/24/48 and the MAC would be 18/36/72.   Finally, melee range and thrown weapons would stay as written ruleswise in Blitz but would just have the initial ranges listed under the entry as a reminder.

With these changes, the MRP for instance stays the master of the midrange bombardment to cover no man's land as well as your own deployment zone where longer range mortars are at a disadvantage due to MR; at the same time it loses that across the board coverage over your enemy's deployment effect. The commonly available 30" range weapons (like VLFG and HGM) fill that new void nicely and can reach the entirety of the 3'x4' board (including corner to corner diagonals) within medium/suboptimal range whereas the truely long range weapons (like heavy field guns) do the same on 4'x6' boards.

To illustrate that point, I've constructed the admittedly crude diagram below showing weapon ranges of a unit placed at the front of a short side deployment zone of a typical Flash! 3'x4' board. Remember that with my revised range stats the next range is double the previous so an LAC is 12 short/24 medium/48 long range. A 12" base range weapon still covers the entirety of no man's land as well as almost half the enemy's deployment zone within short/medium range whereas an 18" weapon covers the entire table within short/medium range with aggressive deployment. Both brackets still cover all of no-man's land even with backfield deployment as well. With this change, the corner to corner deployment bombardment becomes the specialty of longer range weapons like HGMs, LFGs, and HATMs instead of just doubling up with MRPs and AGMs/ATMs.

It takes some getting used to as the LRP and shorter ranged upgrades like snub cannons become limited to 12" or less effectiveness but I think that frankly goes with their fluff as well as previous editions of blitz (flanking tanks to get a close range shot instead of sniping from 24" with a snub as is commonly done now). I realize (as my opponent astutely brought up) that the above likely changes the effective TV of various upgrades and units slightly (no more than 5tv per model though IMO) but I'm not ready to start tweaking them directly until I get alot more games in with my house rules. In the end, I do like the fact that I had to make actual decisions on which weapons to use at what ranges in the most recent demo game instead of just defaulting to twin-linked MRPs for most things without much thought.

As a result of an interesting discussion regarding the changes in Gear Up 6 on the DP9 forums, I've decided to incoporate the following changes (thanks goes to feral on the DP9 forums for coming up with the idea that I expanded on for the first linked fire option).

Indirect Fire: Add "Weapons choosing to use the indirect fire option may not fire at targets within half their short range. The may still fire at targets at under half short range if the weapon does not have the MR trait and therefore can use the direct fire rules."

I've always found it odd that mortars that can actually shoot almost straight up vertically had a minimum range requirement but artillery pieces that have a much lower max angle of elevation didn't. The recent changes in minimum range got me thinking about that and I've decided to extend the minmum range restriction to all indirect firing weapons. This means that most rocket pods, field guns, and other IF capable weapons will now no longer be able to fire INDIRECTLY within half their short range (remember that I've change the terms for range and "optimal" is now short). The weapons will still however be able to fire directly within that range though. Weapons with the actual MR trait will still not be able to fire directly and have no firing option within half short range (unchanged from Blitz! and GU).

Linked Weapons: Weapons that have this option may be fired together as part of the same action using one of the two options below.

     -For each linked weapon fired, assign one of your rolled attack dice results to it; this result counts as the result for the attack as well as for determining out of ammo results for that weapon. If the weapons were fired indirectly, use the highest dice roll for determining scatter for all linked weapons fired. The defender rolls his defense dice once and applies it to each individual weapon attack roll. Any extra attack dice results are discarded and any weapons having no available attack dice to be assigned are considered to have rolled a fumble (including for both OOA and damage purposes).
 
     -Designate one weapon in the link as the primary weapon. For each additional identical linked weapon fired, you may add half the ROF (round off) to the ROF of the primary weapon. You may then use the modified ROF for the purposes off the attack roll that the target or targets will defend against once only for the linked attack. Add +1 per linked weapon after the primary to the target number for OOA checks and use the highest die rolled for OOA checks for all the linked weapons fired.

For example, a grizzly with att2 rolls a 5 and a 3 for his linked MRP attack with full ROF using the first option above. The defender must then roll once and determine the damage versus the 5 and 3 individually using the normal modifiers and the 3 result causes an OOA result for that one MRP.

If the same grizzly instead had two targets 5 inches apart that it wished to attack, it could use the second option to make a singe combined ROF attack versus both models (not normally possible with the standard MRP). Using the same dice results as above, scatter would be deternined by and the target would roll versus the single result of 5 for the linked attack. The 5 would also be used for determining OOA for both pods which in this case would mean that they're both out of ammo (due to the +1 modifier for the check for two linked weapons). The grizzly fired its full payload on the gamble of damaging both models. 

Updates and Coordinated Attacks

After my recent Flash! demo game as well as after hearing some feedback on the matter from Cutnose, I've gone ahead and switched back the attack modifiers and cover system back to the way it is in blitz as well as removed the +1/-1 modifier for EW/LD tests based on speed.  I was frankly hesitant about that last part without trying full specialized recon units but I worried about it the more I thought about it.  As with changing the firing bonuses, I kept thinking that players would opt to stay put for an additional +1 rather than maneuvering to lessen the amounts of cover bonus to the target number by 1.  Initially I thought that removing the in the open cover state and increasing firing range bonuses would increase the lethality of the game but it instead caused the game to keep the same lethality only moved from optimal to suboptimal range; I can see the same thing happening if I encourage staying being stationary for EW events as well.  Since this is the first time I'm updating a large part of the blog, I figured I'd list the format I'll be using.  I'll detail the individual changes and reasons in the regular blog posts like this but just delete/change them in the formal sections that I've listed under the Table of Contents to the right of this post.

Now, on to the new stuff.  Another interesting issue brought up during the last game was that the lack of coordinating fire use.  Neither my opponent nor I used the rule during the entire game.  Part of the reason likely was that my demo squads had upgraded weapons on the CGLs which normally neither of us use.  Another more subconscious reason is likely that the smaller squad size decreases the end effectiveness of the coordinated fire action.  In normal Blitz, you give up one (usually mediocre) action of firing by the CGL to give 4 other models in the gear squad a benefit.  If you decrease that total number down to 3 as I have, the mental math doesn't necessarily work out as well.

There are several ways to approach this.  One would be to do nothing and simply use the lessened coordinated fire action sparingly.  The second would be to create a separate "free action" that CGLs and 2iC models can  once a turn that doesn't take up an action of their own with either no penalty or a -1 penalty to all actions as per the original Blitz and RPG rules.  The final route (and the one I've decided to go with) is to incorporate the coordinated fire rules into another action so that the model may still do something else that turn as well.

Coordinated Attack: A CGL (or 2iC if the CGL is dead) may nominate the target of his successful FO with the additional effects listed under Coordinated Attack in the Field Manual at no additional action cost.  While any friendly model may use the FO as per the normal rules, only models from the same fire team/section as the CGL may benefit from the coordinated attack effect.  Coordinated Attack may still be used as written in the Field Manual as an independent action, gaining the ability to still work if blocked by ECM within 3" + EL.

As always, feel free to comment.

Post Demo Thoughts...

Well.. I'm definitely glad that I got to try the demo with an experienced player as my thoughts on several things have changed since the game.  Previously, I had played with people that were relatively new to Blitz so they didn't know the ins/outs of the proper game let alone my house rules so it was nice to play against someone who knew what the proper game plays like.  That said, some things ended up surprising me to say the least.

The big thing that I noticed is that the game played more statically than I expected.  Part of it was due to my choice of demo armies that both included a Fire Support fire team whose job it is to just stay put waaaay back and fire but I don't think that was the only contributor to the camping we both did.  Another was the rolls and choice of offensive objectives dependent on killing the enemy (which encourage taking shots over positioning) as well as a small 3x4 map that is known as a killing field apparently in playtesting circles.  Finally, my opponent made an interesting observation in that my smaller combat groups tended to weed out the chaff that usually ends up running up and providing flanking shots to the upgraded gun models.  Without them, the gunners tended to just hand back and shoot instead.  This was also true of my upgrading the CGLs in half the fireteams to effectively gunners instead of commanders (both I and my opponent prefer to run lean CGLs in Blitz which wasn't the case here in Flash!).  

I'm really not sure what to do with this frankly.  I *want* to be able to play with smaller squads that still feel like the bigger ones but the only things I can see to change are to get rid of the veteran slot granting yet another option you wouldn't otherwise get.  A second choice would be to give players the option of adding back in those remaining two gears that are "missing" from the squad as the second part of the fireteam before allowing a second CGL led fire team to be taken.  Basically, you'd get the fireteam as is right now but wouldn't be able to take another until you took that second group of two models cut from the squad.  It would effectively be a complicated version of the blitz subcombat group rule in the Field Manual.

On the game rules side (as opposed to army construction as detailed above), two changes I made had unintended side effects when combined.  The removal of a bonus to shooting at models out in the open combined with an increase overall in range bonuses meant that both I and my opponent measured out some risky top speed moves that positioned us better for the next turn but ended up just staying put and taking combat or stationary shots in cover instead because there was no relative reward.  Zooming up at top speed for a better next turn position that grants you an in the open shot at optimal that counteracts the top speed firing penalty does encourage more movement from that safe suboptimal range at combat/stationary speed shot.  I'll likely be rolling back those changes in the blog and see how it goes instead.

One benefit to camping was that we gave the new cover/concealment and lock rules a fairly thorough go.  Despite the really wacky rolls (like my Blitz Jaeger failing his 2+ active lock check two turns in a row with 1's), it did seem to work with one caveat.  Some across the entire board active locks from one camping corner to another with unoptimized gears (like a simple Jaeger) made me think that the active lock check system doesn't account for cover enough.  I don't want to complicate it much more (especially not with measurements) but it does need to account for active locking a target model behind a house versus a target model behind a house, a hill, and a ruined building.  I think that I'll modify the rules to instead say that the TN of an active lock check is 4 +1 per piece of terrain crossed after the first (as opposed to just the flat TN4). 

As always, feel free to comment about the above. 

Flash! Cheatsheet

Just a quick update and then some musings.  I worked on a quick cheatsheet for use in Flash! games that highlights some of the changes in the rules that I've proposed in a (hopefully) easy to read and understand format.  The sheet isn't an exhaustive tome unfortunately (there is no way of quickly listing every perk/flaw that was affected by cover/concealment and stat changes) but should be complete enough for an average starter game to try out the rules with some basic forces like the ones I created the datacards for.  Let me know if there is something important that I missed or if there is a mistake that I didn't catch.

As for the musing, I was involved in two recent conversations about my blog and the question of combat group size came up in one and the overriding purpose of all this came up in the other.  My goal with this blog somewhat involves both those questions in an interrelated way.  I wanted to make HG easier and quicker to play as stated in the intro to this blog.  Since I'm not doing an entire overhaul of the Blitz engine but rather pruning parts I find unnecessarily complex for a wargame, my results with that help the "easier" goal more than quicker.

The other main method is to make the combat groups smaller to allow for quicker games with the same feel.  I've noticed that most people seem to gravitate towards a large skirmish (10-15 models) size battle with Blitz that ends up being around 750-1000TV roughly.  I suspect that this is largely due to the time it takes to play Blitz games which don't unfortunately play as fast as the lightning German nomenclature would suggest.  Since adding another combat group likely increases the total playtime by 50%, I rarely see lists presented or games played that feature the less commonly used combat groups like recon squads or stealth units or paratroopers unless the entire army is built around that premise.  With smaller combat groups, you can fit that third recon fireteam in the the starter set strike and fire support ones without increasing the actual fig count or play time significantly.  It also encourages people to buy new figs to try out the more bite sized squads as a single blister and a left over fig from another squad gives you a taste of the full squad you'd play in Blitz without the added cost as well.  HG seems to work best in the above 10-15 model/750-1000TV range and I hope that the new combat groups allow you to put more variety into that apparent sweet spot of mecha gaming.

Minor Update...

Nothing major going on here since the last main update but I do have a small announcement as well as a minor change. I've submitted my skirmish scale combat groups house rules to the Aurora fanzine for inclusion in the next issue. *fingers crossed* That part of this blog is completely compatible with the existing FM rules so I figured it would be the most appropriate part to submit initially.  Also, I hope to play a game with the new rules later this week so will post a small battle report with thoughts and opinions after we're done.

As for the rules change, this one is minor and doesn't deserve it's own post or especially its own chapter. A while back, I noticed that the rules for top speed and stationary only affect attack and defense skill checks but have no effect on other things like EW. I personally believe that if you're racing across the battlefield that fast that you can't perform any other actions with your gear (due to top speed costing an action) and any command point generated shots are at a penalty, that same penalty should be applied to other actions as well that require concentration like electronic warfare and calling in precise artillery strikes.

Rules Change: Apply the following modifiers for speed to EW and LD based tests: +1 when stationary and -1 at top speed.

Table Effects and Objectives

While there is some lively debate on the DP9 forums about how to improve the PL system and how it relates to the current objective system, I'll stay out of that topic for now in relation to my Flash! houserules as I believe it needs too drastic an overhaul for the purposes of this houserule blog (but I may change my mind at some point in the future).  Most of the below changes are just tweaks to the current Scenarios chapter in the Field Manual (pg. 24) to make them consistent with the changes presented earlier in the blog (like the electronics stat for example).  Any rules not specifically addressed below are not changed and you should use the FM rules as written.


Battle Conditions:

Roll once of the following table:
       1-3:  No additional effects.
       4:     Roll once on table effects.
       5:     Roll once on unusual events.
       6:     Roll once on both the table effects and unusual events tables.

Table Effects

1: Night:  The stealth perk is always applied.   Models not out in the open are counted as in cover one step greater for the purposes of passive/active locks (so a model in some cover is counted as in partial cover).  This is cummulative with the benefit from the hiding special action.

2: Dawn: The first two turns are treated as per the night rules above.

3: Dusk: The last two turns are treated as night. If used in conjunction with the variable time limits unusual event, the start the night conditions on turn 4.

4: Fog/Smoke: No model is considered out in the open for the purposes of cover modifiers.  Subtract 1 for every 12" of range or portion thereof to the target from the electronic stats of firing models for the purposes of active/passive locks. 

5: Storm: No model is considered out in the open for the purposes of cover modifiers.  Variable wind conditions cause a -1 penalty to attacks using IF including artillery strikes.

6: Roll a 2d6 on the above chart and reroll 6s, duplicates, or the second roll granting night, dawn, or dusk. 


Unusual Events

EM Storm:  Replace the term comm event with electronics event.



Objectives:

Unchanged except as follows:

Recon: The size limitation on the combat groups is change to groups of 2 or more models if using my fire team and section houserules instead of traditional Blitz squads.

Scout: Change the range limitation to 3'+ EL instead of within detect range.



Support Options: 

Remove any reference to concealment and change the term comm event to electronics event instead.  Defensive assets are considered to have an EL 0. 

Example Squad to Fire Team Changes

I recieved a question about the changes I proposed to combat groups and thought a post detailing how I'd convert a group from a squad to a fire team would be a good idea.

The most complete way to convert a squad is to have the book open next to you (either physically or virtually with pdfs) while you have Gear Garage open.  You add the squad you'd like and then add the upgrades and swaps that you'd like (making sure you can take 2 of them in the "squad" entry for the single flash! fire team entry).   There isn't a way to automatically validate my house rules in Gear Garage but the program does offer a relatively easy way to do it manually.  When you have a 5 gear squad, make sure that the four non-CGL models are two groups of two identical models (including swaps and upgrades).  If the program allows you to take two of them (including the upgrades), you'll be able to take a single model in the fireteam.  Here is an example of a Southern FIF fire team of one king cobra, one blazing mamba, and a black box iggy CGL made from the appropriate squad entry. 

Veteran Line Strike Cadre (Specialist) 380TV

• Black Box Iguana [2/2/1/2] (14/42 LHC) LAC MPZF VB CGL (2 options) 60TV
• Blazing Mamba [2/2/1/0] (17/51 LHC) HGLC APGL APGL HG VB (1 options) 55TV
• Blazing Mamba [2/2/1/0] (17/51 LHC) HGLC APGL APGL HG VB (1 options) 55TV
• King Cobra [2/2/1/0] (21/105 SSLHC) LPA HRP/24 MRP/36 LGM LAC APGL HG VB CR (1 options) 104TV
• King Cobra [2/2/1/0] (21/105 SSLHC) LPA HRP/24 MRP/36 LGM LAC APGL HG VB CR (1 options) 104TV

You can see that I've got two sets of two twin models (the King Cobra and Blazing Mamba) that show me with the existing build of Gear Garage that I can take doubles of that upgrade.  I upgraded two Jagers to the King Cobras as well as the both regular Mambas to Blazing.  The CGL Mamba took CGL only swaps down to an Iguana (in the squad entry) and then to a Black Box Variant (the Gear Regiment CGL only upgrade).  The only thing I'd need to manualy check is if I took any other upgrades like weapons for the CGL that weren't specifically listed as CGL-only as gear garage would allow me to take the "change 1 model in the squad" option which isn't enough for a fire team.  The final step would be to simply mark the units on the GG printout (similar to how I italicized/bolded the models taken above) and then add up the TVs.   

Anyways, I hope that helps show any interested players how to make up an army using Gear Garage to try out the smaller scale Flash! fire team games.

Advanced Changes

I do realize the irony in calling an update "Advanced Changes" on a blog filled with completely optional and unofficial house rules not endorsed by anyone other than myself as the author but I felt it was somewhat appropriate.  So far, the updates have largely dealt with my two goals of simplifying and speeding up the play in Blitz; while my rules changes and combat group reorganization can be used either together or separately, I feel that they accomplish both of my stated goals (especially when used together).  In this entry, I'm going to be posting the updates that don't necessarily accomplish either of those goals but rather are simply matters of preference. 


Fire Support Gear Survivability Changes

One recognized problem in HG Blitz is that the supposedly tough models like the Grizzly actually get damaged and destroyed fairly easily compared wtih their lighter brethren.  The problem lies with the inherent link in Blitz between the strength of the hit and the amount of damage due to them being dependant on the same dice roll.  This simplicity is actually something I consider elegant about the Silhouette system and I don't see it as the main cause of the problem.  The problem in my opinion is the rigid adherence to the stats originally developed for a related but much more intricate RPG system.  Using the same armor value but vastly simplified damage system means that hit that did almost nothing really significant combat-wise in the RPG (like causing minor communications system damage) result in a box of damage regardless. 

The solution that DP9 has been using (and rumored to be expanding via the next Gear Up webzine) is to change the defense modifier of the gear to 0 at combat speed instead of the -1 typical previously of Fire Support class gears.  While this does address the problem of lessening the damage taken by FS gears, I don't find the change to be very elegant.  I personally liked the idea that a gear was less maneuverable but simply able to shrug off the damage due to high armor instead of the effectively dodging the same as smaller gears despite twice the mass and 2/3 the speed.  The solution I'm presenting is simply increasing the armor of Fire Support gears to a level that actually increases their survivability.  I've tried taking an approach to this set of house rules that I start with the results I want and work my way back to the rules to express those results and this change is an example of that.  The armor values of the fire support gears might shock long time players but I've done the math and they generally result in only slightly more durability to most incoming fire than compared with the standard Hunter/Jaeger and still leaves it behind the Elite gears.  Basically, the FS gears are able to largely shrug off lighter damage like LACs but get hit just as hard by the heavier ordnance like Mzk/Hbzk which are meant to take out their class.

Change:  Size 7 gears with a maneuver -1 stat (using my Flash! houserules) or a -1 defense modifier at combat speed (using the standard Blitz rules) increase their basic armor rating by 7 for 10TV.  If the models currently have an upgrade option to increase their defensive stats, you have the option of using this armor increase instead for the same listed points.

For example, the Grizzly would increase its armor to 25 (27 in the front) as part of the roaring upgrade instead of increasing its defensive modifiers by 1.   The above (especially the TV cost) may be revised once the next Gear Up issue is released.  Feel free to try the above and let me know how it affects the actual survivability of the gears (once you get over the shock of the simple number value of the armor stat!).

Combat Groups

In the introduction to this blog, I said that my approach to this set of houserules for a faster and simplified Blitz variant would be two-pronged.  So far, my posts have been focused on simplifying and possibly clarifying the rules to make the flow of the game easier.  In this post, I switch gears to the other method which is making the game quicker by decreasing the effective game size without hopefully losing the "feel" of the larger Blitz game.

Blitz plays a bit differently in person compared with the impression that you get from both the name of the game as well as a reading of the rules.  While still a simplification of the Silhouette d6 system compared to the older Tactical and RPG rulesets, the game time benefits of the simplification are largely gobbled up by the larger model count in the new rules.  While I am a fan of larger-than-skirmish level games, playing at the size that allows the mix of models I'd like means I'm largely devoting the entire evening to the game.  I've found that changing the size of the combat groups (while still keeping the character of them) allows me to add more variety to the army without increasing the overall TV (and therefore length) of the game.   The Flash! combat groups will be referred to as fire teams for gear squad derived elements and sections for the vehicle ones (thanks to SGTcapraco for the army nomenclature clarifications!).

Enough with the fluff, get to the CRUNCH!  :)

Start your Flash! army by choosing the various squads you'd like to use in Gear Garage (see the link to the left for the free army construction program) using whichever Army Field Guide, League, and Regiment rules you'd like to use per the normal rules.  Change the Combat Groups into Flash! variants as follows:

Infantry: This category includes all combined models.  There is no change to the rules of these types of combat groups.  I considered modifying them but frankly infantry IMO should outnumber vehicle and gear based models by a significant figure count margin when used.  In addition, infantry/combined model units generally are already relatively inexpensive as well and are rarely most of the TV of an army.

For vehicle and gear combat groups in Blitz, construct your Blitz combat group as normal initially and then use the following conversion to fireteams.
1-2 model CG in Blitz: 1 model (CGL) combat group in FLASH!

3-4 model CG in Blitz: 2 model combat group (CGL plus one of your choice)  in FLASH!

5-6 model CG in Blitz: 3 model combat group (CGL plus two of your choice) in FLASH!

7+ model CG in Blitz: 4 model combat group (CGL plus three of your choice) in FLASH!

 You may choose any models you have in your full blitz squad keeping in mind that models using veteran upgrades must spend a veteran slot to do so per the rules below. Combat groups containing combined models (like infantry) are unchanged from Blitz. Before taking another Fire Team of the same type, you must take a second combat sub-group with your remaining models (if any) from the first Blitz combat group.  For example, selecting a Blitz two tank squadron gives you a single model in FLASH! (the CGL).  If in Blitz you upgraded the tank squadron to 3 models by adding an extra tank, the FLASH! version would be 2 models instead (CGL and one of your choice).  If you wanted to add a second tank squadron of the same type, you'd have to first take a second combat group consisting of the remaining tank you didn't take above in both examples.

My original intent was to make the fire teams half size mirrors of the full blitz versions but that seems to have lead to some confusion unfortunately.  I've rarely seen bog standard models in games unless those bog standard models were quite special to begin with (like my opponent's Fer de Lances this past game) so why fight the inevitable.  The above instead lets you just cherry pick whatever you want from blitz instead of being a half size version with the caveat that you must "complete" the original blitz squad

As for veteran slots, I've decided to try changing the veteran slot effect to applying only to a single model instead of the whole squad.  With the ability to cherry pick the models, this seems like killing two birds with one stone.  It limits the overpowered possiblities inherent to cherry picking upgraded models somewhat and also grounds the game a bit more at att/def2 without everyone fielding extra sturdy boxes.

Veteran Slots: You get a number of veteran slots equal to your army PL in Flash!. Each slot may be used to upgrade a single model to veteran status and unlock veteran options for it. (i.e. a single gear or a single squad of infantry is upgraded for each vet slot spent).   You may buy extra veteran slots at the cost of 2 SP per veteran slot.  


You can still take a fair number of veteran upgrades (PL4 gives you 7 in a 1000TV game which is the upper limit roughly for my skirmish houserules) but you're giving up all your SP to get to that point.  Honestly, I think att/def3 and extra sturdy boxes should be more expensive but changing TV is going beyond what I'd like to do with my blog and would prefer to leave that to DP9 themselves.

As usual, let me know if you try any of the above or whether you think it's an improvement.  I'm leaving the original army construction rules in the table of contents to the right for the time being to aid in comparison but hope to eventually change the chapter once I get some feedback.