Jump to content

von Richtor

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by von Richtor

  1. Actually, when faced with "convert or die", I think you'll find it harder to convert a man of faith than a scientist.
  2. I think we’re all agreed that either we need a special CAV deployment rule or a new, R.A.G.E. wide deployment rule. I think the latter is preferable. I also still think that either the wider deployment area and/or “staggered deployment” are the way to go here. My only real problem with the former is that I have never played Warlord and so have no idea what the ramifications of the widened deployment area might be to that game. In further defense of the “staggered deployment” rule, I would just say that hidden models are not a necessary part of the rule. I just thought it might be kinda neat and THAT might make a good scenario.
  3. The Deployment rule I propose is as follows: Every player may begin the game with none, any, or all of their Platoons in the deployment area. They must supply, to the initiative deck one card for each Platoon that began the turn on the board plus one for each Platoon held in reserve to be brought on to the board this turn. When a player’s card is drawn from the initiative deck he may either conduct a turn normally for any Platoon which began the turn on the board OR bring any off board Platoon to the deployment area. If you share Chrome’s concern (and in an FFA game, it’s certainly viable), then by all means, begin the game with two or three Platoons on the board. Bear in mind also that the draw of the initiative cards can ruin anybody’s day regardless of anything decided here. If, on turn one, all of your initiative cards are drawn before any of mine are, I’m pretty much done regardless of how we deployed. This rule does nothing to increase that likelihood however. Yes, Saint, this is a diversion from the current system but it could be used “R.A.G.E. wide” as it will work for Warlord too I think. I admit, I can see no reason for a Warlord player to use any but the “everything on first turn” option but that’s fine. In any case, I doubt that Reaper is afraid to deviate from the “one system fits all” model a bit. After all, didn’t this discussion begin as a result of first turn strike problems? Is that a big problem in Warlord too or are strikes pretty much a CAV thing exclusively? Finally, no Spartan, I haven’t yet tried this rule with CAV. I sure wish someone would though (preferably someone who finds first turn strikes problematic).
  4. Well, we're not talking about RAP or impressionist art here, do you have any particular reason(s)?
  5. Yeah, this was going to be my second suggestion (It's how we do a lot of our games in my wargaming club). By a "staggered" deployment I mean the following (by example): I show up with five platoons (pick a number). I deploy two of them on the board shuffling 4 initiative cards into the deck. When 1 of my cards comes up, I can either conduct a normal turn for one of the two "on board" platoons or bring one of the three "off board" platoons to the deployment area. At the end of this turn, I have 4 of my 5 platoons "on board". Two are in the deployment box and two have probably moved out of the deployment box. Because I anticipate bringing my fifth and (known only to me) last platoon on board this turn, I add my fifth card to the deck and continue in this fashion. Actually, you could combine these two suggestions and eliminate the deployment area altogether. Everybody starts the game with nothing on board and, as initiative cards are drawn, any platoons first action will be a non-combat(movement) action to move onto the board from the edge. The classic "meeting engagement".
  6. "Come on down mate, we'll throw a couple more Rach on the barby!" Puma pilot Bruce New Queensland Brigade Group
  7. You know, when I suggested a staggered deployment and nobody commented at all, I figured that my understanding of the problem was way off and everyone was just being polite. I now realize that my understanding of the problem is accurate and I'd like to revisit it if I could. It seems as viable a suggestion as any as far as alleviating the problem of first turn strikes and more so when game mechanics are considered. It requires no special, "first turn only", rule. Candidly, it would add a new dimension to the game as there would no longer be any reason to actually show my opponent all the toys I brought to play with on turn one. It leaves him to guess, for the first couple of turns at least, just what he may be facing. So, bluntly, I ask, what's wrong with a staggered deployment?
  8. I'm not sure I would go here Chrome. The only real modern equivalent to orbital bombardment is satellite photography. In this case, while you can redirect a satellite somewhat, you still have to wait for it to get into position and you have a window of about 90 minutes to get the job done. This is fine in the case of offensive actions but do little for you defensively. My theory on CAV is that this is what happens on a large scale to break major blockages or blow "holes" in whatever lines may form in 23rd century warfare. What we play on the tabletop then is those break-through units engaging enemy units held back from the lines on point defense or garrision duty. As a result, true orbital bombardment never rears its ugly head and I don't consider Strikes representative of true orbital bombardment. That's just my personal take on things of course and solves nothing Strikes wise. As to eliminating Strikes from the game entirely, I don't think that's necessary. I'm sure a more workable system can be arrived at and included. From there, you can modify those rules for home use or simply run "no strikes" games. There are some good ideas presented here and I would encourage anyone running a game who is familiar with the way Strikes currently work (I mean a working, seen them in action a few times, familiar, not just knows the rules) to introduce some of these ideas in order to playtest them. Let's get some comparative feedback.
  9. The only example of a vehicle mounted flamethrower that I am familiar with is the Sherman tank of WWII. I don't think it was any more effective than the infantry carried model other than that I'm sure it carried more fuel and could, therefore, spray more liberally.
  10. So.....they're like the P.L.O. of Taltos?
  11. It's more the froo-froo, sap bleedin', seed breedin', twigs o' walkin' kindlin' aspect that puts me off (Elves are really walking plants you know).
  12. Ivarr has pretty much mirrored my thoughts I think. I would add (apologies in advance for my harshness) that strikes are the tools of the tactically inept. This is why I never considered playing the Terrans. To push the rediculous to the sublime, I say double the cost of all strikes and remove the 25% cap. I show up at the table having spent no points on strikes and my opponent shows up having spent 100% on strikes. Turn one, he dumps everything he has on me eliminating 50-75% of my force. I hold the table. I win. Yea me! In short, I think that strikes should be expensive. It's a first turn concession to the superiority of your opponent. You should pay for that. Personally, I'd rather bank my points on being better than you rather than luckier.
  13. What if first turn strikes were just less accurate? (Include any fluff justification you think you need here and keep in mind that IA which "misses" and drifts is still more likely to damage the enemy on the first turn then on subsequent turns). Oh, wait, we're talking strikes not IA, may not be doable then. I'm really uninformed ala Strikes.
  14. My understanding of Defensive fire vs. Indirect attack is as follows: I may return fire with every model in the AoE (whether or not it is actually damaged) using either 1 DA (if I have LoS) or 1 IA if the model has the Counterbattery SA (no LoS required). Is this correct?
  15. They beat the Rach didn't they? In a most convincing fashion... TWICE! Hmm....Monkeyboys vs. undisciplined rabble, sounds pretty win-win to me. How about best three out of five?
  16. I'm new to this whole thing having played CAV but a couple of times a few years back but "Strikes" are actually very important to me. The reason for this is my general "Why Mecha combat?" philosophy. I have always contended that, if I have Orbital and Interface Superiority, I couldn't care less what you do on the ground. Using Orbital strikes, I become the US to your Iraq; eliminating 80% of your military assets before landing. So, a game which addresses that, saying, "well, you can try that but here's how it works" is important to me. Even if it creates its own justification (for mecha) by artificially reducing the effectiveness of said strikes compared to our imagined realities, it allows an anal retentive like myself to accept what's offered and move on. Oh, I also wanted to say that I was neither condeming nor condoning the "No strikes first turn" idea as a rule (I'm far too inexperienced for that), I was simply trying to point out that, if that is the desired mechanic, you should be able to wrap it in all of the "fluff" you want sans worries of abuse.
  17. The person who suggested this also suggested an increase in objective points for the model. I don't consider the fact that a newly converted model was easily dispatched by his former fellows a bad thing necessarily. He still had to take some focus off of you to do it. Of course, it may prove all but free for him to do so while you court trouble in the unsuccessful "Convert or Die" attempt. How about this (prepares to duck), the Malvernis player can add non-faction models to his Task Force (at an increased cost) which represent models formerly converted....naw....that's weak.
  18. It's all "fluff". The game mechanic is: "No strikes on the first turn". That's pretty straight forward. There's not a lot of wiggle room for the "Cheeze Weasels". I would love to see a serious rationalization for a first turn strike given that in bold letters. What if you just didn't bring everything in on the first turn? As initiative cards are drawn you can either move a platoon out of the deployment area, bring a platoon to the deployment area from "off board", or pass. (Alternately, you can eliminate the "pass" option by adding cards to the initiative deck based on the number of platoons you intend to bring on this turn.) You'd always have the option of beginning play with everything "on board" but you risk the potentially devistating first (turn) strike just as you would in any real life situation where you pile up your military assets. I realize that this would slow games down somewhat and may be undesirable for that reason alone.
  19. Sci-fi aside, I think I would just glue pointy bits to a black ping pong ball. Is there really any more efficient a shape for a "cold Navy" than the sphere? (This precludes the possibility that you're depending on a spin gravity for the crews where a sphere could get....awkward.)
  20. Personally, I'd like to see a mini of me in at least 54mm. It would serve as the center piece of the 2mm scale model of the future Capital I'm building. Sorry, couldn't resist.
  21. Oh no, not these guys too.... (Note to self: Slap Ed when next we meet)
  22. Well, this is certainly the implication but I'm guessing that it can't be that easy.
  23. In reading the CAV2 beta rules, I had a couple of questions. Unfortunately, I didn't write any of them down and I remember only the following: Under the Malvernis SA's it lists, "Convert or Die". For an explanaition, it refers me to Warlord. Common folks, I'm as lazy as the next guy but this is incredibly bad form. I do not own a copy of Warlord nor do I anticipate buying it in the near future. How does this SA work? Also, has anyone else noticed that certain game options can screw certian factions? I mean, the option of "No strikes" will screw the Terran and limiting the maximum number of Platoons certainly does the Templar no favors. Just an observation.
  24. Whenever I run into this I always figure that "Ritterlich" is the Terran name for that Empire and everything you read about their culture, organization, et. al. is accurate....from the Terran prospective. I try to imagine that there's a multitude of things we (as Terrans) are hard pressed to explain about them, including some downright alien philosophy. This goes for all non-Terran races and cultures equally of course.
×
×
  • Create New...