Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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 -

    Valid B2B has been achieved when the two Models involved have flat base sides touching.
    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. I think he's trying to plan for the local tournament in a few weeks--though I would consider modified section requirements in a casual game.

    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. The last game Sergeant Crunch and played was a modified Warmaster Tournament with just four CAVs (we just rolled for initiative each round and it worked really well - great fun). It just happened that neither of us brought any Recon models, so there was no EST or ECM Pods on the board.


    What I found was that I liked the feel of the game a lot better. In previous games, the (usually) +3 to DV and/or RAV has been important enough that clustering around the Recon model (even if out in the open) became a necessary tactic. While AOE attacks theoretically discourage this, from my limited experience the bonus is significant enough that the ECM/EST cluster remains the primary tactic and other steps are taken to deal with the AOE models (for me it has become fast moving transports and infantry with satchels.


    My question is whether other people have found this to be the case as well. I know that the ECM/EST issue has undergone considerable revision, and my sense is that the revisers have taken all kinds of issues into consideration (issues that I am unaware of). Nevertheless, after a game in which terrain was exploited much more, models were spread out, advancing to avoid the range penalties, and generally using more of the board, I wanted to raise the question again.


    What is the consensus on a rule (house or revision) that makes ECM or EST a specialty action (both would be two actions) that works like an attack? So the recon model would target an enemy, make some kind of attack roll modified by TC and range, and succes would indicate that friends would have a +TC to hit the "painted" enemy for EST, or that the target model wuld have a -TC to conduct attacks (because its computers are being jammed). "TC" in both cases would be that of the jamming/painting model.

    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.

  6. CFP wouldn't even be an option on Defensive fire. Defensive fire is a snap shot back at the attacking model not a coordinated attack. EST works on all the other items you've listed as long as you or your team mate have manged to spend the action for a target lock.


    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.

  7. 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?

  8. I have seen the ammount of unassembled stuff that outek has... especially infantry <_< ... he could easily fill another sabol motor pool with it easily...


    he has conservatively just in infantry what i have in CAV total... especially when you count his unassembled stuff...


    outek definitely loves the T-bird.... currently he has 6.... I owe him 3 and a starhawk 6...

    if he got everything that he has assembled... he could easily fill up 2-4 division cases from sabol...


    point wise outek has close to 100,000 points of cav stuff conservatively :wacko:

    Ahhh sweet envy! But now I have a goal to shoot for.

  9. Wow! And I was proud of my little 4000 point force I'm building.


    So Outek and others, please regail me on the virtues of the T-bird. I looked at getting one, but the point cost seemed so steep that it didn't seem worthwhile. With the minimums in the section rules as they are, how can one effectively incorporate a T-bird into a force for a 2000 to 4000 point game and still be functional. They just seen way too costly for a secondary role.


    Can you have one T-bird as a Sepcialist section?


    How do you play these?



    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.

  10. Yes and no,


    1. correct


    2. The TL bonus is from the target lock action not the CFP, though as Chrome stated they take effect simultaneously.


    Example: Fire Support Section Delta is composed of three Specters and an unmodified Kahn (which does not sport a CFP). The Kahn is within 3" of it's section mates and is undamaged. The Kahn Target Locks a soft transport thereby granting any ranged attacks the +3 TL bonus due to the Kahn's EST. The Specters now fire their IAs at the transport using 1d10+3 (Kahn's TL)+2 (Specter TC)+2 (FRS) for their target point roll.


    I think the question is, using the same unit above, if one of the Specters decided to TL as well (TL is a non-repeatable action and all non-repeatable actions of the same type have to occur at the same time) in order to establish a target point (TP) does it get to use the Kahn's TC for the TL bonus or its own TC value when resolving the TP roll. The issue is one of timing, specifically when does the TL become effective and applied to nearby units when using EST.

    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:

    The Target Point Roll for a Chain Lock Pod is not part of a Ranged Attack and can not use the bonus from EST Pods.
  11. As a general rule, you should never tell some one no you can't know what I have. But ya keeping strikes a secret till they are deployed is always fun, as long as you have them clearly notated somewhere and in what quantity. Its all about what we call "Open Playing" Each player knows if asked they will give full clear answers to the specific questions asked. The fun is that neither of you ask unless you really really need to know the info. Someone who continually tries to get full disclosure of everything before the dice even start rolling will usually find themselves with out an opponent.


    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.

  12. Were you guys burning the midnight oil to come up with these terrible puns?, I think you're burning your candle at both ends!!


    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!"

  13. Why have CAV completely ignore templated terrain features though?

    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.


    is there at least hope of covering other terrain types in a supplemental

    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.


    The game allows for rough ground, but without a template how would you ever have that?

    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.

  14. In a recent game an Infantry Mortar Section was deployed within a woods template.

    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?

  15. You need to get over the concept of shooting "through" Cover. You're not shooting though it, you're shooting around it, at the part of your target that is exposed (which is the part the Model that you've drawn LOS to).


    The amount of trees between you and your target are unimportant b/c you are not shooting through them. The Cover Penalty represents the fact that its just slightly harder to aim now, and that of course, some of your rounds will catch some of the cover as they fly down range.

    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?

  16. Is your problem that you don't feel that a Flamethrower could damage something that it doesn't have LOS too, or that you feel all AOE weapons should be IA?


    This does bring a couple of points to my attention that I'll deal with in RAGE Chronicles. Flamers shouldn't be able to participate in Salve Strike Fire Attacks and *any terrain (hills, walls, buildings) taller than the attacking model that completely cross the Flamer's AOE, should end the Flamer's AOE.

    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?

  17. I think at this point a little reminder that we are talking about a game with giant stompy robots might be in order. Perhaps flamers are really airborne nanobots set to cause havoc and discontent, rather than some sort of ignitable fluid sprayed from a nozzle. Perhaps its a focused beam of heavy radiation that attenuates over short distances.

    I just pressed the "I Believe" button (actually, I pressed it at the giant stompy robot part) so that real life and personal experience wouldn't intrude on my fun.


    (snarky attitude optional ::P: )

    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. ::P:

  18. I will say that fire from a source like a fire bomb or flamer is still effective against a hard target like a tank. Though agreeably not as effective as it should be against a soft target.


    But remember when you put a sticky based fire onto a tank it happens to heat things up, sucking the oxygen out of the object its burning and cooking off the soft bits inside. Moe may be able to discuss this further from his tanker days.

    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.

  19. Is your problem that you don't feel that a Flamethrower could damage something that it doesn't have LOS too, or that you feel all AOE weapons should be IA?


    There are a couple of reasons why the Flamers are DA weapons, none of which have to do with LOS:

    • If they were IA weapons, a Model couldn't use its other DA weapons, even tho the target(s) are right in front of it, in Point Blank Range.
    • IA weapons can't target models within their 12" No Fire Zone
    • An IA attack could ignore any terrain features between the attacker and target(s)*

    This does bring a couple of points to my attention that I'll deal with in RAGE Chronicles. Flamers shouldn't be able to participate in Salve Strike Fire Attacks and *any terrain (hills, walls, buildings) taller than the attacking model that completely cross the Flamer's AOE, should end the Flamer's AOE.

    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.

  • Create New...