Jump to content

Joel47

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joel47

  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
  16. But putting rounds on target in the time frame of one round in the game (no time-of-flight) implies guided munitions already on their way. The ability to uplink the targeting info ("200m straight out" would be insufficient, BTW, without also saying where you are and which way straight out is) is the FIST equipment/ability. I might be convinced that the info can be passed from a non-FIST unit to a FIST unit if one or the other has Wizzo, but the game has established already that targeting data can't be passed from model to model without Wizzo. I can accept it if both the FIST model and the n
  17. Play immediately after the enemy's activation in which an artillery-based strike is called. No further artillery-based strikes can be called for five rounds. Cost: Depends on what the new costs of artillery strikes are, but about twice the cost of a strike. Two versions: Intercept: The fast-movers performing the strafing run are bounced and drawn into a dogfight, negating the strafing run. Costs the same as a strafing run. (Perhaps strafing runs could be used for this purpose, as the trend in present-day modern aircraft is towards dual-purpose F/A.) Air Superiority: Full air supe
  18. I agree. I'd like to see the targeting roll made by the model calling in the strike. Otherwise, I get a mental picture of one infantryman poking his head over the top of the berm, then pulling back, telling his mates that the enemy is 200m due north, and seeing a bunch of soldiers all pull out their cell phones...
  19. Let us know how it works (the next few weeks are too busy for me to get in a game). I'd love to see something like this make the rulebook. Currently, we're using "Mutual Assured Destruction" to limit the amount of strikes taken, but obviously that won't work for the finalized, printed rules (which should be balanced without requiring the immediate application of house rules).
  20. Yes, but (so long as you're using movement dice) you can calculate it all yourself, without asking your opponent what "special features" are on your target. The math doesn't bother me one bit until I run out of fingers -- I'm just trying to come up with a non-silly, non-permanent way of making things that affect the to-hit # like deflect obvious from across the board.
  21. You get to control the flow of the battle, but throwing points into extra tanks when you could be using those points towards extra platoons (and thus extra initiative-modifying tokens) is the conflict I meant.
  22. I'd have no problem seeing "Convert or Die" limited in # of uses, and my objections to the overwhelming first-action Strike possibilities of the Terrans are (I hope) well known. Yeah, the more I think about it, 3 total in a 3000-point game is insufficient. The thing is, I like games that force you to make tactical choices, and the more the better; thus, a limited pool of resources appeals to me. Sounds like a perfect balancing act to me. Yes, and I like that a choice is forced upon the player; it just seems odd that their abilities would work at cross-purposes. I was just extending
  23. We count with fingers, too. I'm just trying to figure out a way for one person to calculate the target number (modified DV) without needing the other person to pitch in with the stuff only shown on their data card. While it does lead to frequent exchanges of "Deflect!" "PBG!" "Damn!", it just strikes me as somehow inelegant. It's not vital, since weapons fire isn't simultaneous, freeing your opponent to fill in any missing data; I'm just thinking it would be nice. I just have to figure something out (that looks better than Chrome's suggestion :).
  24. I still think just limiting the tokens to one use per game (instead of per turn) would work well -- you can seize the initiative when you really need it, but you're not *constantly* going first. Basing it on the number of platoons will lead to most Ritterlich forces bringing as much cheap stuff as possible, as I think going first is worth quite a bit. This would also reduce the power of the added tanks, since you'd be paying points into exisiting platoons instead of creating new ones. Going your route you'd also have to lose tokens as you lost platoons, making it a double-whammy as you'd al
  25. The short-range mods are a godsend when you're trying to get a Rhino out of heavy woods. (Sure, I spent two Dictators doing it, but it had to be done.) I am having trouble remembering who has Deflect (and, correspondingly, who has PBG), since I've never been good at rote memorization (though it will come with practice, I'm sure). Spartan6 makes a good point that it gets even worse with upgrades. While I don't think going back to the WYSIWYG modelling limitations, I'm trying to think of some way to discreetly mark the base to remind everyone what the model has, ability-wise.
×
×
  • Create New...