Heavy Gear Blitz Battle Report: 100 TV Utopia vs North

I don't really have any kind of context or preambling spiel I can give for this particular battle report, it was just a one off game of HGB. I guess what makes it noteworthy is that it was the first term that I've fielded a Utopia roster in person, as my previous Utopia games have all been played via TTS, and my previous in person games have all involved borrowing other people's miniatures.

Combined Armiger Force Roster 100TV (V3.1)

-- GP -- 
ECM Recce N-KIDU 4TV
Hunter Recce N-KIDU 4TV
Hunter Recce N-KIDU 4TV
MP Recce N-KIDU 4TV
MP Recce N-KIDU 4TV
-- FSsec -- 
Missile Support Armiger Sniper 15TV
Recce Armiger 15TV
- Quiet Death, Combat Group Leader (CGL)

-- SO -- 
Commando Armiger Anti-Tank VTOL 20TV
- Who Dares, Second in Command (2iC)
Close Support Recce Armiger 18TV
- Duelist, Advanced Control Systems, Combat Group Leader (CGL), Force Leader
EMT Commando N-KIDU 6TV
EMT Commando N-KIDU 6TV

This was my roster for the game. I feel this is a fairly standard Utopia CAF set up, with an aggressive SO group spearheaded by the Commando Armiger, and a more defensive GP group that is intended to take space and provide longer ranged fire support.

 

 

Norguard Roster 100TV (V3.1)

-- SK -- 
Command Sniper Koala 12TV
- Combat Group Leader (CGL)
Sniper Koala 10TV
Tank Hunter Dingo 9TV
Tank Hunter Dingo 9TV
Para Cheetah 10TV
- Second in Command (2iC)

-- FS -- 
White Cat 11TV
- Combat Group Leader (CGL)
Wild Ferret 7TV
- Second in Command (2iC)
Grizzly 13TV
Destroyer Grizzly 13TV
Hunter UC 6TV

My opponent's roster. I can't say I am especially familiar with the North and the typical ways in which they tend to build, but I think in some ways this list is conceptually similar to mine. The SK group is capable of airdropping and taking aggressive forward positions to leverage it's HACs and linked MRPs, but still has some longer ranged punch with the LFGs on the Dingos. The Dingos also bring some decent melee capabilities, which is especially useful vs N-KIDUs given their status as vehicles without melee weapons. The FS group is a mix of faster EWAR kitted gears that are intended to give TD supported fire missions to the slower Grizzly pair and their MGMs. The Grizzly pair also brings strong firepower outside of guided fire missions with linked MRPs, a HAC on one and a HBZ on the other.

 

The table that my opponent and I utilized. The scattered small templates with trees placed on top of them were treated as being area terrain, and we agreed that sensor lock could not be drawn through two separate buildings. The bottom half of the table is obviously more open, with longer sight lines and less cover. Overall, however, this table felt relatively dense - especially on the left side. With the game being a friendly one and with my opponent and I both eager just to get into things, we agreed to just stay on the sides we had set up on - myself on the bottom, and my opponent on the top.

 

I lost the deployment roll off, and deployed my GP group first. 

 

I feel this is a rather aggressive position, but I wanted to have access to the middle of the board and doing so while also claiming cover for the majority of my units required me to deploy them quite far forward. On the right is the Support Armiger, which has access to multiple long firelanes to try and leverage it's MLC. The ECM N-KIDU was deployed in front of the Support Armiger in order to give it a source of ECM defense if the need arose.

 

My opponent's FS group was deployed more or less opposite my GP group, clustered behind (and in this photo, partially obscured behind) the building on the left. It is perhaps less aggressive a deployment than my GP group, but is just as non-committal in terms of flanks - with access to multiple firelanes and ways to advance up the table.

 

 

 Without much cover on either side of the table, I decided to put my SO group forward up the table on the right side. I figured this side was a little more obscured from my opponent's FS group. I also figured that if the SO group was pushed into, my GP group - especially the Support Armiger - would be in better position to support while not exposing itself to the FS group. Still, I wonder if this deployment was an undue risk - being able to deflect hostile fire onto the N-KIDUs, which can also serve to repair the Armigers does mitigate the risk of this deployment somewhat, but I think a more conservative position in cover, in my deployment zone, might have been less risky.

 

My opponent airdropped their SK group in a position to aggressively pursue my SO group, taking minimal damage from the airdrop and staying behind cover, in a position to pop out and start blasting.

 

 

I ended up winning the objective roll, and my opponent decided to select pave the way as their first objective. I decided to choose assassinate, targeting the CGL and 2iC in my opponent's SK group. My opponent then picked Claim, deciding to go for the left/right variant of the objective. Finally, I picked the hold objective, placing the two blue markers as you can see in the photo above.

 

 

I luckily won the initiative roll for the first turn, and immediately went to activate my SO group, hoping to blunt my opponent's SK group before they'd get a chance to shove into my side of the table. My Commando Armiger went VTOL, and started strong by completely removing one of the SK group's commanders (the Para Cheetah), and getting some damage on the other. The rest of the group dealt a bit of chip damage to the rest of the SK group, and pulled back to avoid melee and to try and draw the SK group into my Support Armiger's line of fire.

 

My opponent retaliated with their SK group, but was unable to get much done aside from nearly crippling the Recce Armiger. While they did get some unlucky rolls, I do wonder if my opponent might have wanted to hold back activating this group - both to avoid exposing it to the Support Armiger, and also to potentially utilize the EWAR assets in their FS group to try and apply haywire to the VTOL Commando Armiger, and take it down.

The first actions my GP group took were to try and take out the SK group's CGL Command Koala, which was accomplished by the Recce N-KIDU working in tandem with the Support Armiger. This accomplished assassinate, and left me feeling in a strong position.
 

I decided that the best use of the rest of my GP group was to move aggressively up the table and hide, hoping to weather the storm of my opponent's FS group and reply in the next turn with stealth enabled gunfire. This advance was a serious miscalculation on my part, as I exposed myself to the brunt of the North's firepower for no real gain, and left my Recce Armiger in a painfully exposed position where it could be easily fired upon while denying cover. I think a more conservative implementation of a similar idea, taking positions and hiding a little further back could have gone a long way and really helped me develop a lasting advantage.

 

My opponent decided to aggressively engage the firing gallery I had presented for him, and after applying haywire to my Recce Armiger, blasted it apart alongside a nearby Recce N-KIDU. The loss of the Armiger is obviously the biggest issue here, as aside from the loss of firepower and EWAR capabilities, it rendered the nearby N-KIDUs extremely limited in ability.

 

Going into the second turn, I once again was luckily able to win the initiative roll, and decided to go first with my SO group to try and completely cripple the SK group. The Commando Armiger went top speed to get elevated shots against the backs of the majority of my opponent's gears, while the Recce Armiger stood it's ground and blasted at the fronts of my opponent's gears. While I lost an EMT Commando to a retaliation while patching the Recce Armiger, I reduced my opponent's SK group to just one solitary gear.

 My opponent decided to stick the knife in on my GP group, taking advantage of the vulnerability of N-KIDU in melee combat. My opponent also aggressively moved up to try and call in a TD supported fire mission on the Support Armiger - while the first spotter ate an MLC from the Support Armiger and got crippled, the second spotter successfully called in the fire mission and got some damage on the Armiger and destroyed the final EMT Commando N-KIDU.

 

My GP group and my opponent's SK group were at this point both fairly crippled and out of things to do, having taken serious damage and burned most of their actions for reactions before being activated. As a result, all they really were able to do was position for the coming turns.

Moving into the third turn, I was able to again win the initiative roll, and once again went with my SO group, hoping to get a knock out blow against my opponent's TD capabilities. They manage to get some chip onto one of the EWAR gears (seen on the far left in the photo above), while also killing the already crippled EWAR gear. There is maybe an argument that I should have instead attempted to destroy one of the two Grizzlies, but they were still further back up the table with at least one of them being most likely entirely unable to contest either of my hold objectives.

 My opponent's FS group advanced once again, successfully getting rid of another N-KIDU and threatening to take complete control of hold objective on the left, but failed to get any damage on my Recce Armiger with an attempted TD fire mission. The still crippled GP and SK groups respectively did very little this turn.

 

After once again winning initiative going into turn 4, I decided to make a very silly play with my Commando Armiger and throw it at top speed into melee with the forward Grizzly. This was a bad idea, and the dice clearly agreed - with the back most Grizzly's retaliation one tapping the Commando Armiger, which in turn only managed to get two points of  damage. What would have been a better idea most likely would have been to just try and shoot up the Grizzly, or physically body block to impede it's movement. Hiding the Commando Armiger to try and deny pave the way on my SO group would have also been a decent move. Not pictured is the Recce Armiger moving at top speed to to contest the right most hold objective. 

 

 My opponent's FS group scrambled to try and contest my hold objectives, but was hindered by the Support Armiger's consistent firepower having crippled most of my opponent's remaining gears. One of my final N-KIDUs was able to rush over and secure the left most hold objective, while my opponent attempted to contest my grip on the right most objective with their Grizzly. Needing to kill either my Recce Armiger or Recce N-KIDU nearby to prevent me from scoring the right most objective, the final action of the game was my opponent mustering the last gear in their SK group to try and kill either unit, and failing to do so. Worth noting is that the way were playing control of objectives was the most actions within 4" - I took my opponent's word for it at the time, but the rulebook states that control is dictated by who has the most models within 4". My opponent is involved in the closed beta testing for the upcoming fourth edition of HGB, so that might be a rule from 4.0 that they accidentally applied here.

 

So while going strict RAW this should have been a 3-3 draw, the way we played this ended up leaving the game as a close 4-3 victory for Utopia. I managed to score both assassinate and both of my hold objectives, while my opponent scored both of his pave the way targets but was only able to claim the left hand side of the table.

 

This was a very close game that could have gone in multiple different directions if some pivotal dice rolls turned out differently. I think it's not unreasonable to claim that I got extremely lucky with initiative rolls, especially in the early turns where my exposed SO group could have suffered heavy damage if my opponent's SK group managed to get the jump on it.

 

I think my opponent might have been able to work a bit more to tie down and destroy my Commando Armiger which was able to run rampant over their entire SK group, but doing so would have required probably the entire focus of the FS group for at least a turn. Outside of that, I think they probably played the hand they dealt to them as well as they could have.

 

My biggest mistake was pushing my GP group as aggressively as I did. I wanted to assert control over the midfield, but ended up simply exposing myself to overwhelming firepower when I probably didn't need to - it was early on in the game, and I simply could have stayed where I was or even pulled back a little and force the FS group to commit to either pushing my GP group or advancing on my SO group.

 

In terms of standout unit performances, I was expecting my Commando Armiger to do some heavy lifting but I think I wasn't prepared for just how potent it can be. The combination of mobility, strong stats (+2 GU when considering the elevation bonus from VTOL elevation) and potent guns really gives it the potential to really get work done. There is an argument that the LATM is not especially worth paying for over the base MRP, but I like having the option to utilize longer range bands. The Support Armiger also really proved itself. The MATM was just as potent as I thought it would be, but I think I underestimated just how deadly the MLC can be. In retrospect it's potential should have been obvious - D7 precise advanced with a good optimal range band is a hell of a thing. In general list wise I don't think there is much I would change.

 

But, I am far from an expert HGB player, and would love to hear the opinions of others on what happened in this game and what the takeaways from it should be - but regardless, thank you for reading!

Edit: the rules mistake we made with scoring turned out to be just that - a rules mistake. This game can be effectively treated as a 3-3 draw.