Jump to content

Joel47

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

About Joel47

  • Rank
    Instigator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Phoenix, AZ
  1. 3" Army Transport tray, though you'd need a 4" if the cav have elevated lances. You could probably fit 12-15 in a tray. I've got Lord Vandrian in a 4" tray due to that pennant, so he doesn't always go with me to games (he's the tray's only occupant).
  2. I recall pointing that out early on, and being told that the rules would be changed to prevent that sort of abuse. Hopefully they remembered...
  3. Skeletal? I thought only living models fed the pain cage.
  4. I put together a Crypt Legion list for yesterday's game, knowing that two of my three possible opponents usually play Dwarves. Result -- I'm going to need a lot of dwarven zombies to properly represent my new army composition. Having a chance to get back up was nice (and my dice cooperated), but the healing was the big thing. A bunch of Piercers had just managed to start hurting Moandain, so I spent a round and a spell healing him back up. He then resumed nuking dwarves.
  5. I'd allow them as jump infantry.
  6. Non-related, but still combat-effective. Defense-wise (i.e., Armor & ECM) I'd like to see upgrade costs scale with model cost. You should pay more to keep a more valuable (for whatever reason) unit alive. Offensive upgrade costs should vary with the effectiveness of the upgrade and how long the unit will stay alive (i.e., #DA and damage tracks).
  7. Realize, folks, that we're not saying things are incredibly broken, we're just saying Accurized (especially) and Armor are too cheap. Look at Point Defense Turret -- besides some ancillary effects, it gives two more armor vs just missiles and costs 35, vs Armor's +1 vs everything else for 15. At the very least, Accurized should be split into Accurate Guns, Accurate Indirect and Accurate Missiles for 15 each, but I still think upgrades like that should scale similar to the upgrades in CAV 1. Sure, it adds a little complexity, but CAV 2 has done such a good job at simplifying things I think w
  8. I saw that, and it was a good catch; I'm just wondering why they drift noticeably from an aircraft hovering 20 feet up.
  9. A heavier missile load might have helped him, but the Upgrade Crazy8 couldn't remember was a point-defense turret. Also, I probably would have stayed out of LOS (running-and-gunning out from behind cover) had I been facing a more missile-heavy force. As it was, I just plodded forward and ignored incoming fire.
  10. We played a 2500 pt game last night, using a +1 to ECM across the board. I think +2 to ECM is the right number, as standing still and firing missiles twice is pretty deadly at long range. It does seem odd, though, that missiles damage things without regard to armor strength. I'd prefer to see missiles handled something like indirect fire, with a lock-on roll (perhaps vs the original ECM) followed by a damage roll (at a higher plus than 2, perhaps around 5 since they've already hit). The main point of the test, though, was my theory (mentioned in this forum several times) that certain up
  11. How about having strikes be two actions on consecutive rounds? Round 1 -- call the strike into the general vicinity. Round 2 -- spot for strike as it lands (which requires LoS and/or a scan). Since we've agreed (I think) that everything has to be terminally guided, as hitting a moving target with off-board artillery is purely luck, that would fix the "first round" effects as well as de-power strikes slightly (but not too much). You wouldn't need to use the same model, either, though it should probably be limited to a model from the same section (gotta have the exact frequencies to talk to
  12. Yeah, it would probably cause too many problems -- it's just that it would fix the strike balance problem so easily...
  13. Hardly ever and almost impossible. That's what I figured. Fluff-wise, it would be best to consider all incoming munitions terminally-guided by the FIST model (or, optionally, the scanning model) due to the fact that every worthwhile target is moving. Combine that with a scan/LoS requirement, and there's justification for defensive fire applying. Now that would fix strikes being overpowered...
  14. But aren't the two guys in question part of the same Rifle Team with FIST? Also, we're talking about hitting moving targets. I figure the spotter has to hit the target with his mega-rangefinder (scan, as you said), then transmit the data to the guy with the radio (free, just push a button). The second guy has to correlate the info *and* contact fire support central. Basically, your idea (explained much better at the end of your last post, thanks) looks good, I just think perhaps one more action, either on the part of the targeter or the FIST model, might be necessary -- how often in today'
  15. That was part of my reasoning back several months ago when I proposed decreasing the strikes/round (though I didn't know the technical term, being strictly an arm-chair general). I like 1 strike/activation -- it keeps 12-model Rifle Platoons from ripping a deployment zone when they activate first. I don't like 1 of each type -- as mentioned earlier, aircraft and artillery rounds should not share the same airspace. The deployment zone is actually part of the problem -- around here, when models first activate they spread out to the edges as well as move forwards. Why not make the default
×
×
  • Create New...