Jump to content


Gunfighter

Members
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

About Gunfighter

  • Rank
    Instigator

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Strawberry Plains, Tn
  1. Gunfighter

    The United Terran Federation

    Done. You have been added to the temp list, previous page, and the Master Chart. Thanks. You can remove the entry for "ghost warriors" as that unit was the first century first cohort of the 43rd in my background. I will just change the designator to 82nd.
  2. Gunfighter

    The United Terran Federation

    Ok, long time no speak.. Put me down for the 82nd Legion, I originally drew my mercs from the 43rd but only because it was the only "Heavy Assault" Legion named in the Fluff. Be kind of entertaining to change the association of 82nd from light infantry to Superheavy Armor. ::D:
  3. Gunfighter

    Rules Question - Terran Doctrine

    Yeah, I figured that out after reading the first couple of posts. You are 100% correct, I simply saw something different when I read it. Fixing the language with specifics will solve the problem. Now, I just have to go back and see what else I have been mis-interpreting. Sheesh.
  4. Gunfighter

    Rules Question - Terran Doctrine

    Funny thing is, it never came up even in conversation. I have to admit I don't really remember when I used two extra flight sections. As the only miniature owner I supply everything, and I own 4 Tsuisekis (neutral paint scheme), 2 Kharls and 2 Longbows, (Terran colors, i.e. Khaki based camo scheme, but no insignia) and 6 Harpies (Terran colors and markings). I do have some old Renegade Legion and Btech fighter models I use occasionally, but the scale difference is enough that I usually don't mix them with Reaper models. Usually. I am sure that at some time or another I have used the Doctrine as I was reading it, but since I rarely use more than 2 or 3 flight sections at one time, not even that if there are more than 2 players, I just don't remember. Truth is, I am usually sticking Fire Support, or Mortar, or Secondary Vehicle sections in the mix more than Gunships, I just don't own that many. Probably why no one ever questioned it before. Now I feel bad about the whole thing, nobody ever complained about the number of Secondary Sections, Flight or otherwise, but then again, on that subject NO ONE in my group likes that rule so they probably ignored it. Guess it is a good thing I never play (or have played) anyone who strictly uses the rules as written, I would have been really embarrassed. Just goes to prove how easy it is to mis-interpret rules when you disagree with them. Oh well, at least I can start using the doctrine properly now.
  5. Gunfighter

    Rules Question - Terran Doctrine

    Wait a minute, Example 2 is correct. The extra flight sections ignore the normal "1 primary- 1 secondary" rule. At least that is how we have been playing it. Air Power You may take up to two Secondary Flight Sections per Primary Section. Since the wording says nothing about not exceeding the "primary section/secondary section" ratio, we (I really) have been interpreting it to mean "2 Secondary Flight Sections" ABOVE the normal "1 primary-1 secondary" ratio. If Example 1 is correct, then the wording needs to change and specify that the extra section is IN ADDITION to any other secondary sections taken in the Task Force. Specifically the wording needs to change to: Air Power You may take up to one Secondary Flight Section per Primary Section, IN ADDITION TO any other Secondary Sections in the Task Force. or Air Power You may take up to one additional Secondary Flight Section per Primary Section, beyond any Secondary Sections already in the Task Force. As the wording is now, in the 2.0 rules and RC08, the implication is that you get 2 Flight Sections ON TOP OF any other Secondary Sections present. This one needs to be clarified for sure.
  6. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    War for Sale. Usable only in a Core Worlds Coalition army - Independent. That explains it, I never picked up WFS. And now that the cyberattack on Register.com has left me unable to access Mil-Net, I probably never will.
  7. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Outek will field multipe T-Birds whenever the game is big enough for him to do so. The dual role of the T-Bird would probably justify the argument for it being cheaper, but I don't want anything to happen that will allow Outek to field more T-Buckets than he already does! Actually I agree with you, sort of, either lower the points and drop a few SA's or increase the speed. IF the speed were upped on the T-bird I feel it should become a "true" Fire Support model, i.e. lower the Piercing value of the PBGs, Piercing/3 would be good, and LOSE CFP and lower the Shielding. Right now it is an IFM boat that thinks it is an Assault Cav, It is NOWHERE near fast enough to fulfill that role, especially since the T-hawk has the role covered. If the T-bird is going to be a Fire Support model, make it that way, how many Fire Support Cavs have secondary guns like a T-bird? Forget that it is a SuperHeavy, either it is a Fire Support vehicle OR an Assault vehicle, it can't be both. If the T-hawk hadn't come along, I would be advocating just the speed change so it could do both jobs, but it is too expensive and not specialized enough for the point cost. If the T-bird were changed to MV8, DV13, Piercing/3, Shielding/2, and lost CFP, I could see 750 as a good point cost, it would still have all the INDIRECT goodies, but be less inclined to try and Hang'n'Bang with an "assault" SuperHeavy. Increased speed would make it more survivable on the tabletop, and allow it more flexibility while still keeping the intended nature of the vehicle. I have to bow out of this one since the Tyrant wins my "ugliest Cav in the game" award. I don't even own one. I am still a little surprised it is slower than most Rach designs, since they tend to favor MV over DV. Never having used one, I have no constructive suggestions. Oh, and one other thing, how come the Terror, Boxer and Slayer never got the RC08 treatment? Or did I miss the updated cards for them?
  8. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    The Thunderbird is a horrible Super, IMO. Expensive, because you pay for both IA and Direct (and cannot use both at the same time). Coupled with very slow move (8 should be the minimum, I think - 7 sucks). And the tinfoil armor SyRam put on it. Once that first hit gets in, it crumbles. I will never field one as is. That would be MV6, actually, lousy movement, as for the rest of your statement, Welcome to my NightMare. I pay for Rugged, Shielding/3, CFP and Piercing/5, all of which are not necessary on the chassis. If I get LOS to a target, I am NOT using the missiles but the PBG's, so WHY HAVE CFP???
  9. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    9 or 10 is a 2 in 10, or 1 in 5, or 20% chance of a crit. 3 Rhinos (seen frequently here in Dayton) will get a crit every turn with those odds. And still blow stuff up even at 40 inches. Then the obvious answer is to kick the points up. How many people field 3 Emperors or Thunderbirds at one time? (I still think the T-bird should be faster and/or cheaper, but then I am a stubborn dude) I've seen three Ogres. But they lost. Yeah, Ogres just don't cut it IMO, not enough punch even w/3 DA's and their armor just isn't up to it.
  10. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    9 or 10 is a 2 in 10, or 1 in 5, or 20% chance of a crit. 3 Rhinos (seen frequently here in Dayton) will get a crit every turn with those odds. And still blow stuff up even at 40 inches. Then the obvious answer is to kick the points up. How many people field 3 Emperors or Thunderbirds at one time? (I still think the T-bird should be faster and/or cheaper, but then I am a stubborn dude)
  11. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Ever thought outside the box, and tried the game with less terrain? Not every fight is in a jungle. There are city fights, which have large firing lanes. And mountains / hills where things can get high and have pretty good LOS, also. Shards scenario - platform in the water - no terrain at all. I have played with gobs, and with more sparse. They both lend themselves to fun games. To be fair I never said we play in a jungle, just LOS blocking terrain, HILLS are really good at that too. And yes, we do play a lot of city games, the only use I still have for all the Space Marine/Titan Legions buildings leftover from those games. Even then we don't use a lot of long straight lanes, the guys I game with are (except me) former military and the idea of wide open corridors like that just doesn't go over well. That sounds to me like the Faction Rhino needs a lower RAV AND Blaster or the Current RAV W/OUT Blaster. I really get the feeling here that it is the combo of Rav/Blaster that causes the problem more than the range. To be brutally honest I think the Ritt Rhino has too high a Rav, I hate like hell to advocate dropping a stat on ANY model, but, even though I get an inordinant amount of pleasure out of using one as the occasional "warprize" in my force, I think to avoid the argument over range we have been having, changing the Rav should be seriously considered. Okay here is a suggestion, try the Ritt Rhino with Rav4 instead of 6 and Blaster, basically the OEM version with 20" range, THEN try it with Rav6 and NO Blaster and see how that affects the balance of the model. Try both versions at an even 700pts and then adjust up or down if you think necessary. At the Same time, try this one, change the OEM to MV8, keep everything else except Blaster and give the guns a 20" range, I think that would make 500-520pts a good fit for the model. This way, perhaps Blaster could be a Faction only SA, the Rhino is the only model with it (off the top of my head, left my cards out in my game building), so the OEM could lose it and get the extra range and still be slower than the Faction model and be a balanced Super in the OEM category. Another question, is the Piercing SA too high? I mean I love my T-hawks Piercing/5 but then the PBGs are only Rav2 and don't have Blaster, yet it is the same cost as the Faction Rhino, while still being slower. Try these suggestions and see what happens, I will try to set up a game this weekend and do the same.
  12. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Yes we can It can be king of CAVs, but it shouldn't be so good that there is no reason not to take one. It needs to be competitive, and right now, it is just plain overpowering in most situations. Enough said on the subject, I think, though. Ok, to prove that I am not just trying to be contrary. Is it the range that makes it overpowering or Blaster? I hear no one complaining about the Emporer like they do about the Rhino, is it Blaster that is the real culprit? What if Blaster was removed? Would that lessen the feeling of being overpowered? Or the points could be increased to reflect the game effects. I would rather see a points/SA change to any Cav rather than a DECREASE in any stat. The OEM Rhino obviously is not a problem for anyone since it is still MV7 RNG16, Ok, what about this, what if the OEM version was boosted up to 500 points and the Faction Rhino went from 655 to maybe 725, a big enough points change that using more than one in a typical game is very difficult. It therefore becomes much rarer, and as a result has less support available, making the overall impact of the Cav less. Instead of complaining it is overpowered, think outside the box and rather than automatically pointing the blame at the range of the guns try playtesting OTHER scenarios. Increased points, or removing Blaster from the SA's, or (yeah, I am gonna harp on this) use some MORE terrain on the table. My point is, that the Rhino is SUPPOSED to scare the bejesus out of its opponents and make them THINK about how to handle it. And one other thing, since it is the FACTION version that causes so much grief, YES there should be no reason NOT to take one, at least for Ritterlich players. Ritterlich and Terra are the ONLY factions with two FACTION Supers, the Mastadon is too specialized IMO to be a regular inclusion in a game (like the T-bird), BUT the Faction's SIGNATURE Cav SHOULD be included and SHOULD be a MONSTER. I think EVERY Faction's "brawler-style" SUPER should be an absolute BUTCHER (no pun intended) on the tabletop, they SHOULD inspire fear and dread. And Chrome, thanks for the post, just that I see no one standing up for Ritterlich, so I figured I should. that and we still houserule that Faction forces can include "war-prizes" such as captured Faction models. Same rules as Open Faction using Faction specific models. Means I can actually use the few Ritterlich and Templar models I own without trying to cobble together an Open force.
  13. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Most shots aren't at that range actually, between 12" and 24" is the normal engagement range. You're wrong and you're right here, correct super slow movers:T-birds, OEM Ogres, Terrors, rarely see the table top, the Faction Ogre gets on the table a little more. Since I own the only models in my group and my most complete armies are Terrans, Rach and Adon, Adon sees a LOT of table time. They don't normally get a range advantage, you are correct there. Strikes don't happen much simply because everyone I play with prefers "boots on the ground". You don't see me advocating a change to the strikes simply because I don't like their current rules. Other players like them as is, I don't and I have alternatives to using them so, I do. Btw, my preferred Doctrine is Air Superiority, Flyers DO see a lot of use on our tables, I just prefer serious Gunships to spotters. MY playing style. And this is the problem, you (and the others advocating the change) want to punish my playing style because it doesn't fit in with yours. This is where I start jumping up and down and holding my breath, justifying a change because you don't like it instead of it being TRULY un-balanced is wrong. If, IF the T-bird were faster, and better able to keep up with my MOBILE play style it would get used more often, I love the model that much. But, as it is, it can't keep up with a mobile strike force, neither can it avoid an enemy force. Even with Piercing /5 on the PBGs, with only 2 DAs, the T-bird loses in a slug fest, because it can't maneuver to use those guns as well as another Super. When I can take T-hawks with Regents and Ronins for support, there is NO GOOD reason to use a T-bird, T-hawks outgun them, Regents are just as good at IA, with Ronins in the force, it is BETTER than using T-birds and a hell of a lot cheaper. I would rather see the T-bird with MV8 and lose Assault, as they are now, they are only good at standing still and pounding at long range, and since no one I game with will stand still, it is a moot point. Sure, with assault they can move and fire both IAs with no penalty, big deal, IAs aren't going to do most of the killing, even with their Rav4 and with MV6 they are never going to get a DA shot unless the opponent gives it to them, and that rarely happens. Yes, T-birds are the best long range IA platform in the game, BUT they are too slow to really take advantage of that range. I realize this is one subject where most people are not going to agree with me, so I will just have to accept whatever change comes down the line. Most probably, I will be leaving my Rhinos and Emperors on the shelf beside my Thunderbirds, a shame really since right now they are doing what SuperHeavy vehicles are supposed to do, Dominating the area around them. Shame they are too good at what they do. One thing I would like to see, give the Regent back AA, for crying out loud, I hate having to use OEM vehicles in a pure faction force. (the Raptor II isn't worth it to me) Oh, and remove shredder from both the Regent and Ronin, I would rather have 1 point more general Rav, especially since (points permitting) I ALWAYS add Adjustable Munitions to my "good" IA models (FRS/3 or 4), except T-birds, 855pts is too much to begin with, another 100pts is just plain stupid. But these are purely personal requests, if the powers that be don't think them warranted, so be it. Not even in Cav1 was I perfectly happy with the rules as written, NEVER have been with any miniature game, I will always disagree with something. Oh, and since it is a complete waste of time still screaming about the Section types and the minimum models required for sections, I have at least reconciled myself to house rules on that. But the Rhino and Emperor getting neutered, NOT GONNA LET THAT GO.
  14. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Like I wrote earlier, I am the sole voice of dissent. No problem, I usually am the dissenting view in my gaming group, example: I am the sole member of the group who still advocates Cav.....Period. @ Vil-hatarn and Sethohman, just because the game has ranges up to 60", doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO SHOOT THAT FAR. I used to hear that same argument from 40k players, "why would I play Space Marines if I can't get 60" shots with my heavy weapons?" or similar comments. Real battlefields rarely have those mile-long shots that Cav2 ranges give players, hell, even in Russia in WWII, 2000m was about the farthest anyone could shoot (or see). Ok, let's take the technology of the game into account, yes you can see and target an enemy at 4-5000 meters, IF HE LETS YOU. If I were a Cav commander and knew I was going up against say, Adonese, who would out range me, say against the Rach, You bet your butt I would look for the thickest, nastiest terrain I could find, to MAXIMIZE my strengths and MINIMIZE his. Just because the damn game has 4 range bands, does not mean you have to use them in EVERY GAME. Come ON!!! I had a bad enough time going from Cav1 to Cav1.5/Cav2 with the HUGE drop in movement that occurred, you want to hear screams, give the Hawk VI back its 24" move from Cav1 with the 36" range of the GGCs. In Cav1 ALL the weapons had ranges that long, with enormous differences in movement, ie the Rhino only moved 8" as opposed to the 24" of the Hawk IV. When movement was restricted to where it is now, the envelope became too small to use values that widely separated. How many people here actually own AND PLAY a Terror Cav? It is a nasty machine, good weapons, good DV, a good value for an OEM machine, except of course, the MV of 6. I have never seen one, never read even one post from anyone here about using one in a game. The changes in RC08 made the game the best balanced it has been, in my opinion, just because you like the idea of having long range shots, doesn't mean the game has to be about that. I think that 20" should be the MINIMUM range for any non-flamer weapon system, period. Start putting some terrain on the damn table, use cover and concealment like the real military does. I can't believe there are this many people with as much knowledge about maneuver warfare, who are playing Cav games like they were damn Old West Gunfights. If you guys are really playing 'stand-and-shoot' on naked tables, like it sounds you are doing, maybe you need to try something different for once. My final statement: Chrome, Mad Pat, the Rhino and Emperor are fine AS IS, the T-bird and Ogre need their MV boosted, oh yeah, and the poor Terror too. Maybe someone will actually use one then. Maybe the final version of these models will be what everyone else wants, oh well. I just don't think that the game should be changed because people can't be bothered to work out new ways to play instead of woofing something is "too good" at anything. But that's just me.
  15. Gunfighter

    I'd change that card and why

    Well, I seem to be the lone voice of dissent here, I still rarely, if EVER field my T-birds because they are so slow. The Rhino, Thug, Katana, and Gladiator II, saw NO action when they were MV7 and the Rhino and Emperor both will go back to the shelf if they go back to 7. Of course, (when I can find someone to play) we have AT LEAST 75-85% of the table covered with LOS blocking terrain. 24"+ fields of fire DON'T exist. The longest open space we use is on my desert table which has an 18" long wadi going across the middle of the table, even then it usually gets at least one terrain feature placed in the wadi to limit LOS. MV8 is the minimum I use, PERIOD. Even with R'N'G NO Cav gets more than one or two shots over 12-16" in DF on one of my tables, so practically every DF shot is in the first range band if not Point Blank. The Rhino is SUPPOSED to be one of the hardest hitters in the game, and the balance between OEM and Ritterlich version fit IMHO. The Emperors lighter armor goes right along with the basically lesser DV of all Rach models, they are also mostly faster than other factions so MV9 fits as well. *rant on* What still burns my butt, even now is the BS that the T-bird is so slow because it is a SUPPORT CAV, Horsehockey, what the hell are those whopping big PBG's for, DECORATION?!?!. IF it wasn't supposed to get up close and personal it shouldn't have DV14, Rugged, Shielding/3 and two of the most powerful energy weapons in the game. If it is only supposed to hang back and use IA's then Rugged and Shielding are both a waste of points. The only, and I repeat ONLY redeeming feature I feel as a Terran player is the Thunderhawk having MV8. I used to have 8 Thunderbirds, now I have 4, the rest have been converted to T-hawks, and if the 'final' rules come out leaving the T-bird at MV6, then the remainder will also become T-hawks. Same with my Adonese army, I NEVER field Ogres, faction or OEM, NEVER. TOO DAMN SLOW. I think more Cavs should be MV11-12 and the Supers MV8-9, it would still balance the game, especially if people play with terrain and not on pool tables. *rant off*
×