Akela

CAV 2 Closed Beta v1.1

182 posts in this topic

Funny how you can stare at a document for days and not find stuff that you meant to change but never actually changed it until after it's posted.

 

Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers chart altered.

-2 Long Range: For each Range Band beyond the first (Direct Fire only)

 

Drift Situational Modifiers chart altered

-2 Long Range: For each Range Band beyond the first (Indirect Fire only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drift Chart altered

-2 Long Range: For each Range Band beyond the first (Indirect Fire only)

Is this for the Drift Situational Modifiers on page 34? I am making changes as you list them and I want to be sure its added tothe right place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this for the Drift Situational Modifiers on page 34?

 

Yup, exactly. I'll amend my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, I know the feeling Matt. I have about 7 guys who are officially or technically my boss. In all honesty my greatest motivation is to send out an error-free document, or I get emails from all of them pointing out the flaw.

 

That scene from Office Space, yeah, I live that every week at least

 

So, will we be getting a 1.11 document with the datacards later today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably just the datacards as a separate document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I've just completed my first reading of the rules. Here's what I've got (without playing any games yet, of course).

 

The Questions

 

Page 10: Critical Hit Damage : Can the SA Linked allow a re-roll of the Critical Hit Roll? I'm guessing no, but it's better to clarify.

 

Page 25: Scan for Targets Vs. Stealth: If stealth is automatically broken for targets scanned within 60", and the Scan for Targets action has a limit of 60", why is there a section talking about rolls vs. stealthed models?

 

Page 44: NanoBarrier: Should the marker be a straight line as for NanoStone?

 

The Comments

 

Page 3: Infantry refers explicitly to a hexagonal base, but such bases are not necessarily a part of the game (even though they're included in infantry packs).

 

The increased distance for infantry cohesion is a great improvement over the 1.0 Document. Much more realsitic for a sci-fi battlefield.

 

No more tripping over infantry bodies! It was just so morbid.

 

I'm still not sure the charge bonus should apply to anything but infantry.

 

The attack modifier for not moving at least 2" does a great service by addressing the concerns of people who worried about static games.

 

The ability of the specialist platoon to regroup any model into it is wonderful, but the text about removing cards from the initiative deck needs to be clarified so that the cards are removed when the next turn's intitaive deck is built.

 

The changes to Scan to Fire should help to allay the fears of those who worried about static models firing across the board accurately.

 

Cover fire provoking Defensive attacks is a good change. It makes it a riskier tactic, but the application of effects before defensive fire takes place is a nice trade-off. It's still definitely worth losing a rifle team for.

 

The example for the Wrecker SA should include some models that would not be hit by the successive attacks, just for the purposes of clarity.

 

The new version of thumper is going to be a very dangerous thing.

 

I'm generally pleased by the changes made to Strikes and SA's which formerly used string. If things stay this way, someone could make a mint selling well-designed AOE templates for smoke, minefields, etc.

 

The new format for the Strike assets is much easier to read than before.

 

All alone for flights is just bad.

 

Having seen the Painting guide in the Warlord rulebook, I'll be very interested to see what Reaper gives us for a terrain guide in Appendix A.

 

Critical hits are pretty much exactly how I would have done them if I hadn't been trying to avoid extra dice rolling. I can't wait to see it in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The attack modifier for not moving at least 2" does a great service by addressing the concerns of people who worried about static games.

I think this rule sucks for a variety of reasons:

 

A) If standing still makes it easier for the other guy to hit you, it should make it easier for you to hit the other guy. Hey! We used to have that in CAV 1!

 

B) The whole reason CAV never had movement modifiers before was b/c the technology was supposed to be so advanced that it didn't matter that targets were moving at 70 mph. Now suddenly it makes a difference between 0 and 25 mph, but not between 25 mph and 70 mph.

 

C) Unless you're going to Run 'n Gun, it makes the Salvo SA worthless.

 

D) It makes the Overdrive SA worthless. Not only do you inflict a point of damage to yourself, but now you're +1 for everyone on the other team to hit you for the next turn. And yes it can technically work with Run n Gun, but you've now limited yourself to only 1 attack at -2 RAV. Not a very effective use of the SA.

 

E) It pretty much defeats the purpose of Stealth for anyone who wants to do the Fire/Stealth/Fire/Stealth trick. Yes you can do it, but now its only a -1 mod instead of -2 (if they can TL you).

 

F) Scan for Targets and then actually firing triggers this.

 

G) I now have to keep track of every single model on the table that didn't move at least 2" so that I can remember who to get the bonus against. I can see this being argued about among players several times a night. "I get +1 b/c that infantry stand didn't move last turn." "No, that one moved, it was this one that stood still." "No, it was this one!" :wacko:

 

At least w/the movement mod in the old game, you only had to worry about what your model did for that single activation. In larger games, this rule is going to be a complete pain in the butt. "Did I move that gunship last turn? It was 30 minutes ago, I can't remember."

 

There's just so many things that this rule screws with or outright breaks (Overdrive) that it isn't even worth it. We had models in CAV 1 that didn't always move. It never broke that game and they even got a bonus to hit! Don't see why it's suddenly a big deal now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll note that I never actually said I liked the rule. I fully expect it to get playtested out of existence, but those who complained about static games will see that it's unltimately not needed. I think the change to "Scan to Fire" is actually a much better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Chrome on this one. I like to park my IF units at the back of the board behind cover and use them for support. Now I will have to move a unit that should be static (in my mind anyway) or else take the risk of my opponent using that to his advantage.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Sun-Tzu knew that if their is no advantage to be gained, do not move. ^_^

 

I gotta go with Chrome and Jeremy on this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Datacard Preliminary Feedback:

 

Errors/Potential Errors

-- KDM Eagle and HM Longbow show Volley /1 instead of Salvo/1

-- The Affiliation of the Raptor should be Terran/SRM instead of simply Terran.

-- "Mortar" is spelled wrong in the names of the two infantry mortar teams.

-- Flamer team shows "Flamer" as a special ability. It should likely be Flamer/1.

-- At first I had a big list of units missing repair values, but then I realized they were all units that would only ever be able to be reapired by the "Repair Suite" asset. Some other units with only 1 or 2 Damage tracks showed '0' for the repair stat. It should probably be presented one way or the other, however.

-- The Chancellor and Mantis have a CCV of 0 at DT3, but it goes back up to 1 at DT4 and remains there for the rest of the DT's.

-- The Lynx, Fenri, Eagle, Hedgehog, Czar and Badger all have CCV's>0, but as Gunships they're ineligible to participate in Close Combat actions at all. Other gunships have CCV's of 0 through the entire datacard. I'm concerned that these values>0 may end up costing units points they're never going to be able to use.

-- I did not find any units (other than the ones with no repair values mentioned above) that were missing Datacard values.

-- I can only assume that motorcycle and hovercycle infantry should lose "Bulky" in favor of the "Mounted" attribute Matt posted yesterday.

 

General Comments

-- Still no chain fire on the Specter? It was part of the unit's flavor. ::(:

-- I counted four totally new units. Nice. Conspicuous in their absence were anything with the new "Dropship" attribute.

-- Some of the card formats are off to the point that text is cut off in the middle of a word in special abilities.

-- It's nice to see Heavy Infantry versions of a lot of the Infantry teams.

 

That's it so far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys really really really want it we'll put chain fire on the spector. thanks for the data card checks.

 

Mad Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider giving Assault to the Heavy Shredder and Heavy Hunter teams. Their power armor should allow them to move their heavy gear into position much more easily, and fluff-wise they're the elite troops anyway, and thus would not be shaken by dismounting.

 

The light infantry/conscript troops/etc I can understand, but these guys have both the training and the gear to work effectively from the moment their feet hit soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close Fire Support Platoons, page 7. The rules as written are unclear as to what models would go in one. Are there CFS plt's that aren't Infantry?

 

 

Freelancers lose all SA's? Wow, that is harsh! I can understand losing Army Specific Actions but the individual model SA's?? That royally sucks. At least take us mercs out to dinner first. :wacko:

 

 

All Alone for Flights DOES suck.

 

 

Ranged Attacks, page 19-20. The declaration of fire example could use some expansion. It's unclear as to wether a platoon can split it's fire among different enemy platoon's or does it have to fire all it's models at the same enemy platoon? The example makes it sound like you have to move all your models to where they can fire or you can't fire at all.

 

 

Stationary, page 21. The quote is dumb. We've already discussed how that rule sucks.

 

 

I hate cohesion rules in sci-fi games. They just don't make sense in this setting. Communications and training should be to the point where no unit feels "all alone." That said, I dislike that you can only regroup with a platoon of the same type and it can only be with a platoon that's understrength also or you lose the excess models. There are such things as over-strength squads and platoons out there. I understand the need to regroup with a like platoon for the use of SA's but I'm opposed to the whole cohesion/regroup thing as a whole.

 

 

Cover Fire, page 29. Why? Whats the point of doing this? "cover fire" aka suppressive fire is intended to keep an enemy's head down and unable to return fire while another element manuevers. It's not an all out "hose them with bullets" type of thing. Suppressive fire is done by maintaining a steady but rapid volume of fire on an enemy's position negating his ability to observe or respond to your manuever element's movement.

All that aside, why would I waste dice rolls trying to scare enemy models off when I can just shoot at and destroy them?

If cover fire isn't going to grant some kind of advantage beyond just suppressing them or shaking them or causing retreat then I'd rather just blow them up. What's the point of having this rule? Is there something I'm not understanding?

 

 

 

Lingering Damage. Hate it. If the nano-repairer's can restore tracks 2 through whatever, why can't they repair the last track?

 

 

 

Deflect SA, page 38. How much harder to hit?

 

 

I like the new flamer rule. ::):

 

 

Hacker, page 39. I hate this. Some yahoo in a cockpit hundreds of meters away can cause me to not shoot or move but my nanite's can't repair that balky switch? It's also too much like an "instant" or "interupt" spell. I see preventing a unit from acting as more of a communications scramble thing, not someone remotely hacking my CAV or tank or infanty stand(???) As written you could do that. Call it something else, like Scramble and give it a possibilty of failure.

 

 

 

AOE's for artillery strikes are too small. Especilly for a Battery strike. A real artillery battery is six tubes and in a fire-for-effect they're firing three rounds each. It sucks very, very badly to be on the ugly end of that. I would say it should be 6 templates and increase it's price. Artillery strike should be 3 templates.

 

 

Cruise Missile Tactical WMD. That's in really poor taste.

If it's truly a WMD the area of effect should be the whole table depending on the wind for a biological or chemical weapon and just flip the table over for a nuke. WMD's are defensive, area-denial weapons, used across entire theatre's.

 

 

It needs to be written in that Models with the Ammo Free SA can't use the Airburst Munitions or Cluster Munitions upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to differentiate between "light" and "green" Infantry. Snipers are light infantry but they're considered elite troops. I can see "green" infantry taking that shaken token but not experienced infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.