Jump to content

successorlord

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by successorlord

  1. Oh I'm doing it right, but I just can't hit the squirrelly little guy. The dice turn on me every time it comes to rolling versus the ECM carrier. I think they're conspiring against me.
  2. I was clear on what they meant for DA and IA attacks. I just noticed the drift reduction in the Artillery Strikes and wanted to make sure this had been considered, just like the minefields. Thank you again Chrome. I like the modified Jamming rules in the Errata. Yes the hamper a simple IA attack now, but Page 3 of the CAV 2 Errata Beta gives the counter point; the "Chain-Fire Pod SA" giving you the IA salvo fire. My Terrans love this new rule. AoE/4 rolling 1d10+5 or +6 against everything you've got in that nice tight little ECM huddle. You had better pray you have some way of avoiding it. Although in my particular case the laws of chance seem to be suspended. I have a better track record landing damage on Rhinos than I do on the Puma cowering behind it with the same strike. Go figure.
  3. In the CAV 2 Errata Beta (Pg 5) Jamming Artillery Strike/Barrage/Bombardments have a -2"/-2"/-4" to their drift rolls respectively, is this considered FRS for the purposed of Jamming's ability to block its effectiveness? In the Core Rules (Pg 109) Minefields, a Minefield, Air is activated only by Gunships and a Minefield, Ground is activated by anything but a Gunship do the models reclassified as Vehicles with MClass Air in the CAV 2 Errata Beta (like the Lynx) now trigger the Ground Minefield only? The answer to this in initially clear based on the wording of the two minefields, but I'm just checking that that was the intention of the rules change? Should the rules for Minefield, Air be amended to read "If a Model with MClass Air..." and Minefield, Ground amended to "If an Models with a MClass other than Air..."?
  4. Ok, if there's the possibility of Optional/Advanced rules I can appreciate the K.I.S.S. principal. I guess I'm still in rules shock coming out of a battletech background. In that case the 1.5" for all models would be my vote.
  5. Listening to the points of the argument why not just allow MClass Air to set their altitude? A different color die than the one used to track damage could easily be used to note this, and even omitted when the model was flying Nape-of-the-Earth. That way you could say that it increases altitude a bit, yes exposing itself, but gaining advantage in its own LoS.
  6. First, I would just like to say that I am really liking CAV as a game, but with gamng group consisting of only two newbies these things happen. Game experts looking to move to our neck of the woods and game would be an ideal situation, until then I'll rack up my forum post count... "Any defending Model attacked by an enemy DA or IA may check to see if they are eligible to conduct a Defensive Fire attack." (Pg 90) A situation that spawned a question: A Rach fire support section declares an Indirect Attack on a Ritterlich attack section. Line of Sight exists, without question between the sections in question. The Rit section contains an Ogre OEM, a Warlord, a Challenger, and a Puma. The Rach player declares his target point to be just behind the Ogre and in front of the Puma. The target point roll fails and the attack drifts off. Now under the AoE are a pair of CAVs from a second Rit attack section (a Rhino and a Warlord). When is a model considered 'attacked'? Last night we settled on anyone who would have been under the AoE had the target point roll succeeded. Does a model have to sustain damage to be considered attacked or is it based on the final location of the Target Point? A firer misses their Target Point Roll and drifts off to an undesirable position. Their only IA weapon has an AoE/4. Would they have to expand the Target Point by a four inch radius or could they just scuttle the attack to stifle Defensive Fire? Also the new CFP Salvo Strike Fire Attack brought up a point. A fire support section successfully targets an enemy section, manages a sufficient AoE to catch them all, and then chains in the entire section to bring the salvo up to a +5. Now the targeted section has valid LoS and range to return Defensive Fire. Since all models in the FS section participated in the salvo would they all be eligible to be a target of defensive fire, only the lead model in the salvo, or only the model establishing the CFP point? On an unrelated question that also came up in the game last night a Smoke Strike was used. Smoke Strike (Pg 113) "Creates...AoE that blocks all LoS for one full turn." We understand what the rules mean when they call for an effect to last until 'the section's next activation'. What does 'One Full Turn' mean? Does it mean until the end of all activations (the bottom of the draw deck), if the Smoke Strike was called in on the third activation of a turn does it last until the third activation of the next turn (if that's true what happens if the number of sections in the draw deck changes), or does it last for the fraction of the turn on which is was called and the entirety of the next turn?
  7. Ok, there is some confusion concerning Indirect Attacks, and moreso concerning CFP attacks, in my gaming group. Firstly, the rules for the Target Point Roll specify that you roll 1d10+TC+FRS (if you have it). That we have no problem with. Now Target Lock, for IA, says that you add TC to the target point roll. So if you are Indirectly Attacking a model that you have already Target Locked, the Target point Roll would be 1d10+TC+TC+FRS? Now CFP mandates that you 'declare and conduct a Target Lock Action', before making a Target Point Roll including the Target Lock. In the next paragraph (of the Errata) it says "The CFP Model may also fire at the Target Point." Does this mean that using CFP is a free action? If it is a free action the rules do not say the model is required to fire at its own CFP point, so it would then be free to conduct another action or is it just a special case of a model being allowed three actions in a round (like Run N' Gun)?
  8. Honestly, I find the 'Eye Level' line-of-sight to be one of the clunkiest parts of CAV rules. With CAV, overall, being a well stream-lined set of rules allowing fast paced play stopping to squat & squint over exactly what I can see just doesn't fit. I've just started reading Warlord and we instantly adopted a slightly modified Size to LoS rule. Inf are size 0, Vehicles are size 1, CAVs are size 2, and Aircraft are size 2 (due to elevation). Elevation +/- increases or decreases the effective size. - The same or larger units block Los. Smaller units do not block LoS. - If the spotter is double, or more, a unit's height he can see behind the unit. - Units and Terrain cast a 'shadow' in inches equal to their height. (ex a CAV blocks anything with 2" behind). No more arguements, no more bad backs or squinty eyes, no more retinal damage from lazer pointers.
  9. This has come up for me already, and I'm curious to see what others have to say. My add on is for infantry being carried with an AA-52 upgrade? Would they be allowed to use it if their transport was fired upon by an aircraft? To me this seems a more clear cut affirmative, though I thought I'd add it for completeness.
  10. I am the other half of the OP's CAV gaming group. Honestly we both came from BattleTech so we like the fact that the came is not centered around the 'giant stompy robots'. I did notice from the diagrams in the rulesbook that what appears to be a standard gameboard is much smaller and significantly more urban than anything we've been using. We're playing on a 6' x 8' table with only a limited amount of hills and woods. This in and of itself keeps infantry from being overpowerful.
×
×
  • Create New...