MattyFoe

I am a fan of the Mil-net auto-ten rule where you roll a second die to try and match the target number for the roll. You keep that "one in a million" or "force guided" shot while neither allowing infantry machine guns to pen Wolverine armour or said Wolverine to completely blow off 90% of the weapons on the board. Both sides have to think a little more carefully when making their moves.

Didn't one of you guys say that RC09 was going to be final my the end of May? I seem to recall an offhand comment to that effect from one of TPTB.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that RC09 was supposedly 'on the verge' of approval months ago. Sgt. Crunch has a post from August telling us that he heard the cards might approved any day then. To use the holiday excuse for Reaper is just that. An excuse. I have been into Cav for only a year-plus now and have been loyal - almost to the point of rabid. Yet, I find myself very much falling into the bitter/resigned line of thinking of those such as Gunfighter. Without even giving us an official version of RC09+cards and an integrated rulebook (not hardcopy. Just integrated. With all the erratas, updates etc. included) it is hard to continue giving Reaper and company any more benefit of the doubt. Come July, (when we may finally see RC09 entered as official and perhaps the Crusader and Kraken minis) I find it hard to believe that I, or any of my gaming group, will care. I do not mean this as an attack on you Saint. The first paragraph was a response and then the rest just flowed. I have been too frustrated about this for too long and just needed to vent.

Except that only Artillery Superiority gives you the free FiST. Air Superiority allows extra slight sections.

Yeah, Terrans have some of the strongest doctrines out there. However, they are not a super faction. Just try to get some mileage out of whatever doctrines are available to your chosen faction and pray to Khardullis that it is not Malvernian.

Thanks guys. That should put an end to that debate.

Had a dispute arise before the last CAV game over how free points affect expenditure maximums. Say we agree to a 2000 point game. One side chooses a Terran Air or Artillery doctrine. Now, they get 10% in free points. This does not affect game size, as I understand it. The just get to play with a force that may be up to 10% larger than their opponents' (assuming they spend at least 200 points on strikes. This means their entire force can now amount ot 2200 points. No more, right? They cannot claim that their force size is now 2200 and claim an extra 10% on those 200 points, no? They cannot "chain" up to 2220. It seems to me thatif one could chain even that once, then their is no reason that they cannot continue to claim 10% on each new little increment. While this number of extra points goes asymptotic quickly, it still seems to violate the common sense of the rule and technically would go on infinitely. Now their strike cap. Strikes say that you may spend up to 20% game points on strikes. That means a Terran player is restricted to 20% of the agreed game size. They are not allowed to count the extra 200 (from the above example) as part of the game size to allow them to inflate the strike package past 400 points. Obviously, the first point about overall points also applies to other "free points" doctrines such as the Terran infantry doctrine and Templar upgrade doctrine. I also apologize if this is at all disjointed and/or confusing, as I am trying to get it all out before my superiors realize I am still at lunch and not back working. :o)

It is no longer a surprise in our group. In fact, it has become a staple. The only problem with it is that it really relies on making its points back quickly. A well balanced list will be a able to put a stamping on the little guys fairly quickly after they show up. So, if you flub a few strike/missle rolls, you may have just cost yourself your investment. That said, it is still nasty enough to have rapidly become a staple here.

Title should be clear, but here is an example; An Ogre wants to Run & Gun for the extra movement. However, it also wants to Salvo Strike to have a chance of penetrating its intended target's defenses. Can the Ogre make the elongated move and also salvo up its 2 or 3 shots?

Ow! Did you just out-rule me? The worlds are colliding! You're killing independent Matt!

For units with two IA weapons, such as the Outlaw and Thunderbird; If Adjustable Munitions is purchased, does it have to be taken for each weapon? If so, does that mean the cost is doubled? I.e. an Outlaw must spend 100 points for AM as opposed to a flat 50? If it is taken separately for each system, does the option exist to only take it for one of the two systems?

I do not know if data card quirks are still being asked for but I found that the Thug and Thug Infiltrator have one. The OM Thug has smart on its Hb2 DFM. Meanwhile, the new Thug Infiltrator has a Hb2 without smart. Both weapons have an otherwise identical statline.

A good stopgap to get FiST into the force is to make the Kikyus the TA variant.

The Kharl 74 is worth it. I've been upgrading Kharls to almost the same specs as the '74 for more points. The Conqueror 73 isnt' that much different really, but it's nice to have the adjustable munitions, though I have a tendency to forget about it. The one I need to play with more to figure out if it's worth it's points or not is the Vanquisher 74. The first game with it underwhelmed me. Now that the RC08 Beta has come out, I do realise that the Conqueror '73 got a little less of a bump than previously thought. I still take the '73 over OM at every turn, though. A real DV instead of that joke 9 is too much to pass up. The SuperKharl is still out in my jury. The changes to the basic model leave me wanting more, but I still feel hesitant over the price tag. In the one game I have snuck them in, they were far from all-stars. They ended up making back far more than their points cost, but they were really only nibbling on scraps most of the time. The Pierce on one DFM and Shredder on the others makes it hard to choose what to do with them. I know the versatility is nice but values of 2 or 3 being wasted feels a hair much to be disregarded. I like the '74, it just has not fully grown on me yet. The Vanq '74 hauls butt compared to the "new" OM. Just the part where it keeps its 24" range is decisive, nevermind the DVs, or any of the actual upgrades. I have only fielded it in one game and came away dissapointed in how weak the new card have rendered the "Soft Hunter" designs in relation to the average unit. Alot of good factional heavies can hurt soft targets almost, or just, as easily as the Vanqs./Ghost/Sabetooth can (no knowledge of the Sabertooth Ja's performance). I need more playtesting before I really come to any decision. Still, regardless of any of these cards, I have one upgrade to point out and then I rest my case for Rach awesomeness: Dictator '70: Assault.

Can you explain this sentence in more detail? I think Forlorn Hope got it fairly well. Edd and I calculate the number needed to score a hit of the d10 roll. I.e., we add all of the bonuses and penalties (RAV, cover, etc.) and then subtract this value from the target's DV. The result is the roll needed. For a critical, we add one + any shielding value to arrive at a critical damage target. Since the big guns can put out such high mods, sometimes shielding cannot actually stop you from taking automatic critical damage. Such as when something can put up a ten-plus against something damaged down to a six or seven. Spartan, We also see a 1 as an auto-hit with only a polite roll to determine if the hit is a crit. possibility. I have found this to be painfully relevant with the Rhino and that Blaster SA.

SuccessorLord and I have had this come up before. (Well, he has had it come up. I merely was on the recieving end.) It made sense to us that, lacking any known language in the rule-book to the contrary, there is no ceiling/basement to a target for critical damage rolls. Trust me, it is unpleasant when your shielding/3 only pushes the target number to a 2.

Played a three-way 4k game this weekend and have a few thoughts on the new cards. Liked just-about-all of the changes in the units we played with. The extra range on the Wight and Revenant was quite useful and allowed them to actually participate. The new Specter II's cost is perfect. It is fieldable, but not so cheap that you are tempted to take any more than you really need. The Blitz's TC3 was a nasty surprise and left us all thinking we needed to grab half-a-dozen of them. For 287, that kind of accuracy seems quite inexpensive. The Ghast was disappointing. The bulked guns are nice, but I always liked its DV12 and thought of it as a medium-heavy gunship. DV11 leaves it vulnerable to almost anything. I would be willing to trade some of that improved firepower back for the old DV. The Dictator 60 actually seemed more resistant to damage than the old version. This is quite odd as I find that anything manufactured by Koda Works, especially the Dic60, is a magnet for damage dice. The general decreases in tank costs were well recieved all-around. They appear to now be openely competitive with mechs when points are considered. The Talon OEM needs shielding! In fact, all Recon models need shielding! This is not actually true. Edd just has the phenomenal ability to roll double zeros against my ECM models with his opening round air strikes. So, there you have it. I found two cards (Blitz & Ghast) out of over two-dozen to raise any questions. Rather good ratio, if you ask me. Good job guys!

Was it intentional for the RC08 Sovereign III to have a better FRS (2) than the Shards' Scoverign IV (1)?

I do not think the problem with the Cougar is that it is "the old man on the block." I think it is that you pay points as if it is a less-old man on the block. I assume that most of its 200 pt. price tag comes from its damage tracks. Yet, I end up wondering when people will feel bothered to shoot at it so it can show its durability off. I once had a Cougar standing alone in front of a large armour section full of heavy and super-heavy mechs. It went two full rounds before we called the game...with not a single shot directed at it.

Blaster for the Emperor? Oh, dear God! What a bloody monster! So it seems that the Emperor has gone from the weakest of the super-heavies to the best of the general combat models. Quite the leap. I may even have to buy one now.

I did not mean to say that point escalation is a bad thing. I was just pointing out the trend, in case anyone had missed it. I do not really care what point level I play at, only at how it fits into my time available and how the gameplay scales to said size. Towards the Emperor, I am not yet sold on it. I know it is ungodly powerful, but it is no more durable than it used to be and now costs over 700 points. I think it now makes for an interesting comparison to the Rhino. I have generally felt that the Rhinos were under-priced. But this new Emperor finally gives a superior benchmark to evaluate them against and we see a little point separation between the "light" super-heavies and the huge super-heavies.

<deleted> that is awesome! I am noticing a trend upwards in points for most of the new datacards. It looks like folks will have to increase their game sizes to keep the same approximate model counts...or stop fielding their Thunderbird's and Emperors.

I assume that it is no mistake that the heavier models have TCs and EDVs move to zero and not just a systematic typo? I am liking alot of the adjustments so far. A few give me pause, but certainly do not have me screaming.

Since infantry w/ jump packs are MClass: Air, does that mean they suffer from the no valid-b2b for CC? I.e. they can naver initiate CC, be a valid target for defensive strikes nor provide support bonuses for other models in CC?

I am loving it so far, but I have to ask where the Ritterlich Doctrine(s) went? I know they were good, but were they so good that they had to be cut entirely? I am really liking the clarifications...many of which SuccessorLord and I have bugged you over during the last few months (Hooray! I have had an impact upon the game!). Especially the IA and CFP clarifications. I would like to thank you (and all your cohorts) for all the work you have done on this product and CAV in general. It is endearing to know that I have bought into a game with dedicated support from those who will listen to the players and do something about problems with the system.