Heavy Gear Blitz Interpolar War Beings Starter Set Review

[Conquistador]

Nice thorough review (long too.)   

Since I don't like Mechas too much (have some in 6 mm for Dirtside) the game/universe has no attraction for me but for those who like that kind of game it seems like something to explore at a con to see if it is worth buying.   

Gracias,

Glenn

[YPU]

I put up with hyper-sensitive people all day at work for the US Federal government...

Damn, indeed you deserve some sympathy indeed. 

WargameGuru, I must say you are taking a look at some of the games I always wondered about, its very nice to see another view of them!

[WarGameGuru]

Damn, indeed you deserve some sympathy indeed. 

WargameGuru, I must say you are taking a look at some of the games I always wondered about, its very nice to see another view of them!

Thank you sir. I've wondered about Heavy Gear for years as well, so we both benefited from that review.

[TheMightyFlip]

In regards to the pictures, I am refering to the size comparison shots, I spooted a Freebooter mini and some scifi  trooper I couldnt place.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, since I read your review (and a few other that you've posted recently), I thought I'd offer some constructive feedback if I may? I do like your reviews, and there are many products that you've covered that I don't think have received very complete reviews elsewhere, so I appreciate your doing them - I bought AE:Bounty after reading your comments, and and halfway through it now.

1) Pictures. You make a clear effort to take pix and paint your figures for the reviews. This is great, but I'd like to see them better. When I click on the images in your blog, I get a popup that is smaller than the original! And clicking on the popup doesn't make it bigger either. I think you could have shown one of each of the models laid out in parts with a coin or ruler in the frame to show what to expect for each model, show the sprue / waste metal and show the actual size.

2) You should really try and cut down on the 'journalese' you use. It makes reviews much more succinct. For example, instead of this:

I found it really hard to cut them away from the extra metal, and then being able to file or cut away the extra, without loosing the single tiny little rivet/bolt detailing on the arm where they were bound together. Thankfully that's a small detail usually on the underside of the arm where you can't see, so it's not a big deal, but it's an observation worth mentioning.

Perhaps consider this:

I found it really hard to trim the flash from the mould vents off without damaging the fine detailing on the underside of the arm. Thankfully it is an area that is not easy to see once assembled, so it's not a big deal.

The last part that you write "but it's an observation worth mentioning" is totally redundant for example; we know it must be worth mentioning or you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place!

3) Tightening up the description means a shorter snappier review. It also gives yo space to explain the other mechanics a bit better. I realise that you state the you only covered the parts that stood out to you, but for a fairly niche game like this, a more complete rundown would really be helpful. Good, well thought-out and complete reviews are far more useful to people than a half-review that only covers some of the points of interest.


I know nothing about Mecha games (unless you count Adeptus Titanicus / Titan Legions, which isn't really the same anyway), and would therefore consider myself the target audience for this sort of product review. I hope that my comments are helpful to you, and I'd like to thank you again for your effort in reviewing the game.

[WarGameGuru]

Well, since I read your review (and a few other that you've posted recently), I thought I'd offer some constructive feedback if I may? I do like your reviews, and there are many products that you've covered that I don't think have received very complete reviews elsewhere, so I appreciate your doing them - I bought AE:Bounty after reading your comments, and and halfway through it now.

I'm always listening to what readers have to say. I can't promise I'll always do, or address every single thing someone suggests, but I am listening, and I do aim to improve where I can. I'm glad you're enjoying AE Bounty too, it's one of the best games 2010 has brought us so far.


1) Pictures. You make a clear effort to take pix and paint your figures for the reviews. This is great, but I'd like to see them better. When I click on the images in your blog, I get a popup that is smaller than the original! And clicking on the popup doesn't make it bigger either. I think you could have shown one of each of the models laid out in parts with a coin or ruler in the frame to show what to expect for each model, show the sprue / waste metal and show the actual size.


Okay that's really odd that you'd end up with a smaller size image. When clicking the thumb it always brings up a larger image for me. Can you point me to a specific one that does this?

As for size comparison, I normally stand the models up against other models to help show that, and if you look at some of the other reviews like the Freebooter's Fate model reviews, I have spread out the parts that come in the package separately to show what the small sprues and bitz all look like right out of the package. In this case I could have done as you suggested, but I didn't want to have to add 10x extra images, so I showed the models in the packaging, primed and assembled, and then painted up in the end.

So some of what you're asking for I already do, just not the way you suggested every single time. But I see what you're saying, I hadn't thought of just laying out ONE of the 10x models, I just figured all 10x models or nothing, so I went with packaging shots, assembled and final painted for this article.

Again I'm taking in what you had to say, and I'll see what I can come up with for some future articles that I haven't yet taken photos for yet..

2) You should really try and cut down on the 'journalese' you use. It makes reviews much more succinct. For example, instead of this:Perhaps consider this:The last part that you write "but it's an observation worth mentioning" is totally redundant for example; we know it must be worth mentioning or you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place!

Haha. Point taken. This is nothing more than the woes of working solo too. I've been a writer for almost two decades now, but up until starting WarGameGuru I always had an editor to work under.

So the entire WarGameGuru experience is a learning experience almost every step of the way, because it's 100% the efforts of one man alone.

3) Tightening up the description means a shorter snappier review. It also gives yo space to explain the other mechanics a bit better. I realise that you state the you only covered the parts that stood out to you, but for a fairly niche game like this, a more complete rundown would really be helpful. Good, well thought-out and complete reviews are far more useful to people than a half-review that only covers some of the points of interest.

I did something a little different with this one than usual, because I didn't want to end up with a 10k+ word feature, or one that was just a tutorial on game-play itself mostly. In the future I'll aim to stick with the format that I normally use the most, which is more complete.


I know nothing about Mecha games (unless you count Adeptus Titanicus / Titan Legions, which isn't really the same anyway), and would therefore consider myself the target audience for this sort of product review. I hope that my comments are helpful to you, and I'd like to thank you again for your effort in reviewing the game.

Well I'm glad I've been able to help, and thank you sir for the constructive comments. I'm always listening to what readers have to say.

[WarGameGuru]

In regards to the pictures, I am refering to the size comparison shots, I spooted a Freebooter mini and some scifi  trooper I couldnt place.

IF you look closely at the text at the bottom of the image of the larger pop up image, there's some text at the bottom, and in the image text I state that one is from Freebooter's Fate and the other is a Pig Iron Productions model.

The Pig Iron one is a System Trooper model, only with the head from the Wardroid Pig Iron Productions model sprue. The Freebooter's Fate model is Bonaccia from the Brotherhood of Assassins faction.

I have many more images of her, and those models here already...

http://wargameguru.weebly.com/in-focus-review---brotherhood-of-assassins.html

[Viper]

Another very nice review WGGuru.
 

Heavy Gear is a bit of a weird one. I love mechs/robots and Heavy Gear have some aspects similar to the likes of Battletech/more militaristic machines and the full on anime style with somewhat weak looking skinny mecha held together mostly by plot armour rather than rivets. Naturally from the latter they have taken things like the mechs having actual hands, and the "roller skate" movement option, while having a more bulky military style over all.

The scale and quality of the miniatures is something I really like. That is one stumbling block I've always hit with the Battletech game, a lot of the miniatures are usually very small and often have very variable sculpt quality. I know the size is as a result of them wanting to keep a correct scale between the mechs and the size of the battlefield but really I would love a slightly more abstract version of Battletech with slightly larger models.

By the sound of things Heavy Gear (at least in small games) comes across much like a 28mm skirmish game in terms of the level of detail when it comes to the likes of cover and damage and most of the models being about 28-40mm tall, which is very interesting for me as I am a huge fan of skirmish games.

One thing I may have missed, is the game "I activate all my models, You activate all your models" type turn sequence? With the reaction fire abillity being an overwatch esq rule to break that up a little.

Also are the hex bases needed rules wise? I know it's a personal thing but hex bases always look a little odd to me.

[WarGameGuru]

Another very nice review WGGuru.
 

Heavy Gear is a bit of a weird one. I love mechs/robots and Heavy Gear have some aspects similar to the likes of Battletech/more militaristic machines and the full on anime style with somewhat weak looking skinny mecha held together mostly by plot armour rather than rivets. Naturally from the latter they have taken things like the mechs having actual hands, and the "roller skate" movement option, while having a more bulky military style over all.

The scale and quality of the miniatures is something I really like. That is one stumbling block I've always hit with the Battletech game, a lot of the miniatures are usually very small and often have very variable sculpt quality. I know the size is as a result of them wanting to keep a correct scale between the mechs and the size of the battlefield but really I would love a slightly more abstract version of Battletech with slightly larger models.

By the sound of things Heavy Gear (at least in small games) comes across much like a 28mm skirmish game in terms of the level of detail when it comes to the likes of cover and damage and most of the models being about 28-40mm tall, which is very interesting for me as I am a huge fan of skirmish games.

One thing I may have missed, is the game "I activate all my models, You activate all your models" type turn sequence? With the reaction fire abillity being an overwatch esq rule to break that up a little.

Also are the hex bases needed rules wise? I know it's a personal thing but hex bases always look a little odd to me.

Yeah it's setup like most 28mm skirmish games in that you alternate activating Combat Groups, and who goes first is determined via a roll off on Leadership between players.

As for the hex bases, there's no hex map used, you simply measure in inches (which is why they give you the tape measure in the starter set). I'm not sure, but I “think” the earlier version of Heavy Gear used a hex map like BattleTech did, but even BattleTech can overlook the hex map these days and can be played via measuring movement in inches on a traditional tabletop gaming surface.

So one would think you could get away with using round bases, but the arcs used in the game are varied depending on the weapon armed, and the hex base is more suitable to define the arcs, as I've seen others painting the sides of the hex to represent their firing arcs, which really would help a lot on the fly.  I also believe the hex is helpful in defining turning movements too, so a round base might not be the best option overall for Heavy Gear, even though it doesn't use a hex map.