Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by successorlord

  1. Hello, Thanks to those involved for getting this out to us as quickly as reasonably possible. I must commend all those involved for keeping CAV such a responsive game. It is one of it's best qualities. I've now read through the entire document a couple of times. The first time I had various cheers and attacks of Tourette's syndrome; so by the second reading it was a much colder, more logical dissection. The questions I am immediately left with are: 1) Factional Doctrines - Do the factional affiliations now not matter at all? Is the 25% of total points now strictly by Manufacturer, is it declared Manufacturer and and Factional affiliation, or will the Factional affiliation be totally dropped on the new cards? 2) Valid B2B contact - I read this to mean that two bases must be in full contact with their flat side. Can two bases be in valid B2B with the same base side? If two Infantry bases are CC'ing a Warlord and one is flat-to-flat with the Warlord's #4 (rear) base side then to claim B2B the second infantry section would have to be in contact with side #3 or #5 base side. They couldn't arrange themselves so that both their bases contacted the Warlord's #4 base side. 3) Jump Infantry - For moving through and LoS do Infantry with MClass Air use the Infantry rules, the Air rules, or something in between? 4) Flamer - No I'm not going to rant again (but since Flamer is a unique DA weapon I just want to see the answer to this question in print). It is not exempted anywhere that I can find, so then Flamers are effected normally by Jamming/ECM bubbles? What happens if only part of a Flamer's AoE is under the effect of a Jamming/ECM Action? Would all models under the template then be harder to hit? No mention was made of the intervening terrain blocking Flamers and/or Flamers not being allowed in Salvo strikes? 5) Satchel Charge - Is assigned to a specific Infantry section, not model. Does this still work if the Infantry section has two bases and they're on opposite sides of the table? 6) Terran Doctrine - The free points alloted in the two doctrines count towards your strikes limit? The Malvernis conscription doctrine specifically allows you to exceed limits. The re-write of the Terran doctrine does not seem bad, otherwise, but this seems excessive. It's already an unstated limit that any opponent with experience fighting Terrans knows to knock out FiSTers thereby negating the entire doctrine.
  2. I don't mind games over 2,500 points. They're not a 10k game, but you can get a good feel for the game. It's below 2,500 points that the game changes too much for my liking. CAV's streamlined rules make larger games both viable and exciting. In smaller games the lack of detail becomes a hindrance IMO. But back to the point, I have been experimenting with a dual function Attack/FS section with a back-up attack or flight and it doesn't suck.
  3. Not entirely. Yes getting more ideas for the tournament isn't a bad idea, but I'm also just trying to wrap my mind around the whole idea of smaller CAV games. I have a couple small forces I'm working on, but it just doesn't Feel like CAV at 2k points.
  4. I like CAV. I like it's relatively balanced approach to combined arms warfare. I am not seeking to CAV bash, but to work out a problem I've been having. I have gotten used to playing 5,000 plus. I can have a Fire Support section, a couple of armor sections, two or more flight sections, etc... Now trying to drop down and try smaller games it feels like CAV looses all those possiblities. In a 2k list I have been working in I get a maximum of two sections. How do you get the combined armes feel at point level of 2,000 to 3,000. With the section minimums as they are how do you get all the different elements into a small game?
  5. Excepting the Satchel charge the rules are vague as written, but I would expect my opponent to have these assigned to a specific, legal, model or section.
  6. Mostly I have played in larger games where one section or more inevitably lacks a recon model. I find there are tactics that make it a playable section, but I also see where it could really change the balance of the game to delete it. A gentleman's agreement to leave it out on a game-by-game basis will probably work best.
  7. I'll add my voice to the chorus of Repair Appreciation. It's not a perfect rule, and I made the mistake of reading the fluff on how it works , but it isn't broken either. I say leave it be.
  8. Thank you. Answers have been given and then later post go right back to square one. The only further clarification I would like to see, mostly just to see it in writing, is EST on an IA attack. It is possible for the Target Point to be a point in space, but only if the Target Point also happens to be a Model can the EST bonus be applied.
  9. From reading the, now, multi-page discussion my OP started I think it has become clear that EST/CFP need a point-by-point errata. Perhaps a doc/pdf that can be put at the head of a post basically as the EST FAQ. 1. EST on DA 2. EST on IA 3. EST on CFP 4. CFP on Defensive Fire 5. Other?
  10. Ahhh sweet envy! But now I have a goal to shoot for.
  11. I'm no expert, but I've been liking the Tbird in 4k-5k games. Used in a 4-5 man FS section it is a nasty lead it with its FRS/4, then it either gives you a base +4 on a Salvo strike, or two +3 shots with the remain shots left to either fend for themselves or salvo the remainder. Basically it makes either one very powerful shot or three decent shots.
  12. I think the webmaster needs to integrate a 'Ask the Experts' checkbox into the forums...
  13. I wonder how long until this will Burn Out?
  14. I got the exact opposite out of Chrome's answer. The TL must be performed by the CFP model with no aid from local ESTs. Therefore in your example the Specters could gain a +3 to hit if they DA fired at the transport, but could not benefit from EST at all for IA fire. Only the Target Point roll uses the TL stat and Chrome said:
  15. That has usually been my philosophy, but I can't just start dumping opponents. Right now MattyFoe and I are the Fall River CAV group. Working on converting other newbies though.
  16. It would probably be better to let it go now rather than adding more fuel to the fire. Besides all this talk of charred horses has me thinking, "Mmmm, Steak!"
  17. That was a decision Reaper made and I don't know the reasoning behind it. If I had to make a guess, since CAV 1 supported both templates and full-terrain, I would have to think that through customer feedback, they didn't feel it still neccessary to support both systems. Yes, this will get covered at some point in time, but not immediately. Non-official rules on mil-net sometime later this spring would be a definate possibility. Well for one thing, Rough Terrain doesn't interfere w/LOS, so using a template for it doesn't effect game play in the least. For another, there's a big difference between putting down a piece of gray cardboard with a bunch of rocks glued to it and saying "this is rough ground", and putting down the same sized green cardboard w/2 trees glued to it and saying "this is a heavy forest". For better or worse I missed CAV 1, but I'll just keep an eye on Mil-Net then. Thanks.
  18. without arguing the fluff, a Flamer is not a PBG and making it stand out from other weapons would make it better, IMO
  19. By "woods template" I'm guessing you mean something laying on the table (like a CD) that simply represents a bunch of trees, right? You and your partner are going to have to make up some kind of house rule for that. CAV's rules are completely WYSIWYG, they won't work with templates. I would suggest that you come up with a way to designate the templates as Light, Medium and Heavy, then decide how far into each type you can draw LOS. Up to that distance, any model inside gains either a +1 Cover bonus for Light or Med woods, or a +2 bonus for Heavy Woods. After that distance, LOS ends and you can't attack at all. Yes in our case the templates are painted and flocked cardboard cut-outs with loose trees put down to show when the template is standing for a forest. Why have CAV completely ignore templated terrain features though? Houserules are well and good, but is there at least hope of covering other terrain types in a supplemental? The game allows for rough ground, but without a template how would you ever have that? Templating a forest allows you to interact with the forest in ways other than just going around it. WYSIWYG is ok in an urban setting, agreed, but what about 'field' battles?
  20. What happens when you are shooting through cover? In a recent game an Infantry Mortar Section was deployed within a woods template. So in this case do you have to be directly adjacent to the models in the woods to [DA] fire on them? How much woods can a firer see though if the target is within the woods?
  21. I'm pretty much ranted out on Flamers. The changes would help, but the biggest thing with a Flamer/Flame Thrower type weapon was that it is dangerous. Yes they are devastating for certain niche roles, but you are required to carry around a supply of volatile fuel for the Flamer. Basically you were walking around with bomb strapped to your back. A rule to reflect this would put flamers in their proper historical/military context (i.e. dangerous to both sides) -- perhaps some additional penalty/damage when a Flamer armed unit takes Critical Damage?
  22. Like I said I like the game, but I was responding to a fluff arguement in kind. I'd rather just argue that the rules themselves. As for the giant stompy robots I'm still working on that one.
  23. I will grant you that, from my own Tanker days, but if you're using the liquid flamer arguement it wouldn't be bypassing solid objects like the AoE does. If you're spraying high to account for the AoE, then the concentrations aren't likely to be high enough to cause the effect you're describing. And the historical drawback to any Flamer/Flame Thrower unit was their own vulnerablity -- and something like that in and the Flamer's potentency is a non-issue.
  24. No I understand why a Flamer isn't a IA attack. If CAV is following the K.I.S.S. principal though why have a unique DA AoE weapon and why does a Flamer have such a high RAV? +4 or +5 vs armored targets? It should be next to useless even against Armored Infantry let alone Tanks and CAVs. The other point being that it doesn't exist beyond 12" beside being an AoE both of which would seem to disqualify it for the Point Blank bonus. Don't get me wrong I do really like CAV as a game, but that's all the more reason to complain at its weak points.
  25. Oh, I understand what the rules say. I'm just arguing the rules need fixing. Houserules are all well and good (hence Matt and my agreement to band the Auto 10), but the problem is still there.
  • Create New...