Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lurkbeast

  1. Remove infantry markers, fine. They're just infantry. But remove blasted CAVs and vehicles, no way. CAV2 has effectively unlimited range in the scope of a game (unless I'm playing on a kitchen floor or gymnasium) and I don't want to get rid of cover.
  2. Maybe you should type up those scenarios and submit them at ReaperGames so a) you can get points for them and b) we can get reaper to host the files and c) it'll have more distribution that way
  3. lurkbeast

    CAV 2 Beta

    The +1 per Model should probably be the final mechanic. We used cover fire quite a bit on saturday (we were doing lots of infantry scenarios) and the stacked modifiers were already quite significant. If it were +1 per attack I think it would quickly get "silly" powerful.
  4. After another day of testing yesterday we'd have to say that we like the string but if the string must go, we'd rather see it go back to round templates. It was just so much easier than the alternatives. We did play with a round template that at 6 inches away also included everything in a line back to the firing model (which created a cone type area of effect similar to the 40K flame template) and we liked that best.
  5. lurkbeast

    gung ho

    We tested this in our saturday games and it worked just fine. Most of us don't care either way, only one strongly against (his argument was that you don't train to drop within point blank range of the enemy, it may happen, but it still should suck). However, as a style thing, one thing that bugs us in Warlord is the "this special ability functions as the bla special ability" ... we'd rather the special abilities be listed out to help us remember them. I'd rather see "Airborne, Gung Ho" which will help me remember that the Model has both special abilities than "Airborne" and have to remember that the Model has Gung Ho. We can live with it since we live with it in Warlord, but I'd rather just have both powers listed out. Besides, what if there are some infantry that aren't trained as well? By leaving the special abilities not joined, you can create those Models, where as if you join them together then all airborne are always gung ho.
  6. All combat actions of the same type happen together. All Shooting. All Melee. All Casting. However you can mix and match that as you see fit. Your cleric example is legal. The archers splitting up is not since all shooting happens together. However you could shoot. If there were still bad guys left, you could charge in and melee. Then cast spells to repair your wounded afterwards.
  7. lurkbeast

    CAV 2 Beta

    We played several more games last night. Our love of CAV2 just keeps growing. We are now at 14 games played between all members of our group of 4. We average 4-5 platoons per player when we play. I have only played 2 games myself but I watch a lot of the action going on with my other buddies. We played 3 games, just to play them, then 2 games testing new mechanics. We were up till 1am again. 1. First, we moved the Specialist Platoon to Primary, and this was loved by all involved. 2. In both our our testing games we tossed rear arc, it didn't make one bit of difference except that everything was a lot cleaner. AoE was just AoE, no worries about arc or anything. We're pretty confident that it's something we'd like to see done away with. 3. We observed that the tactical flexibility of a 2 main weapon, 1 salvo, 1 IA CAV (the standard superiority setup) is awesome. Examples: 1 Attack a) Move + Run and Gun, 1 DA (less accurate, more movement) b) Move + Run and Gun, 1 IA (less accurate, more movement) c) Move + Ranged Combat Action, 1 IA 2 Attacks d) Move + Ranged Combat Action, 2 DA e) Sacrificed Non-Combat + Run and Gun, 1 DA, 1 Salvo (less accurate, more movement) 3 Attacks f) Sacrifice Non-Combat + Ranged Combat Action, 2 DA, 1 Salvo (no movement, extra attack) One of the players remarked that he had wished he left his missile packs on instead of sawing them off for CAV1. I thought that was funny. 4. As per another thread's suggestion/request/wondering, we tried one battle with the penalty at only -1 and felt that it was an insignificant penalty at that point. We prefer the -2, the -2 feels like a fair price to pay to gain the movement. If it's only -1, then just get rid of it completely. 5. Our two testing games we did away with Infantry Cohesion and it didn't make much of a difference. Our infantry models were always within about a foot to 18 inches of each other anyway. However, we did feel that some nod to Cohesion was necessary, we suggest setting Infantry Cohesion at 2 feet. That's 100 scale meters. This is a game, regardless of what the "Real Army" does, if you want to have two groups of groundpounders on opposite sides of the table, then take a small regular mech inf or rifle platoon and a specialist platoon and get the extra initiative card out of it. You're basically creating two maneuver elements, so just make two maneuver elements when you set up your Fighting Company and play it that way and get the secondary platoons to boot. 6. We would like to suggest a Terminology change. It's getting confusing to keep both the terms "Models of Movement Class (MClass) Air" and Gunship. We suggest moving any APC of movment class Air to Gunship. Rename it Heavy Transport or something like that (so we'll have AT and HT). Then in the rules whenever it needs to refer to an Air model the term Gunship will signify. It's cleaner that way. Gunship would then mean anything with movement type Air that isn't a "true aircraft" (using the terms from CAV2). 7. Observation. Maybe it's because our group plays Warlord on a regular basis but we seem to have far fewer questions about certain mechanics than some of the other posters. Me and one other of my companions are CAV players, the rest only play Warlord (and one has only every played Warlord, the rest of us are longtime wargamers). This leads me to believe that when all the missing text, example photos, and example text is put into the document like it is in the final Warlord book, that the RAGE conversion will be a success. For instance, we don't require any reminders to add 6 inches to our indirect fire because in Warlord, you add 6 inches to indirect fire. We didn't have the "pre-measuring" question because Warlord doesn't allow "pre-measuring" (but we do use our little ESM CAVs and various small models to Scan anytime and everytime we have a question about range. Every Action Phase we always seemed to have one Model scanning or other Models entering Stealth. It is very satisfying by the way to actually have something for the ESM models to do each and every Action Phase). 8. Instants. These are lots of fun. These had better be expensive. Barrage alone is easily worth another CAV out there on the field. As for artificially forbidding the use of instants in the first two turns we're all against that. It makes no sense. When the game launches, those instants will have a point cost. If I sink those points into instants and not Models, I want to use them. If my Task Force is about to engage the enemy, you had better bet that I want some artillery softening up their position before I go in. Likewise, I would expect my opponent to hit my forces as I come up. Question regarding drift, do we roll drift using the Model that called the Instant's RAV or use the RAV listed in the Instant's description? We've been playing that we use the RAV of the Instant itself. If this is not the case, this needs to be presented differently to help readers grasp that. If it is the case, can we get a format change so that the RAV of the attack is listed right above "Point Cost" or something? That'll be a little more like Warlord's presentation that way and a lot clearer. 9. Flamer. I posed the thread's question to the group. In all honesty, we never considered such a use of the flamer so we were surprised initially. Our oldest grognard commented "damn rules lawyers" but after I talked to them a bit we put our heads together to propose a fix rather than just grouse. Solutions a) Go to a more standard template, this is the least interesting option but easiest. b) Go back to the original flamer proposal from CAV2 from a few months ago where it hits anything within X distance in a 180 degree fan. This assumes people can measure a 180 degree fan. c) Put in an illustration were the flamer hit anything between the outside edges of the loop of string. So if I looped the string into an S shape, I would hit everything caught in the loops of the S as well. This is the most complex option but retains the string. Our group was 1 vote for a and c and 2 votes for b. 10. Infantry. We're glad they die easy. If they were more difficult to kill there would be little reason to field anything else. When you use the infantry platoon as a single entity instead of a bunch of smaller ones, you're looking at a 8-10 damage track, 8-16+ ranged attack juggernaut that will obliterate things in Close Combat. If infantry were very much more resilient then there would be little reason to take much else out there. We played one game where we increased their toughness and it didn't make much difference so that would be the fix we suggest if the desire is to make infantry more rugged without making them the uber unit in the game. We tried making hunters have a negative but that was not popular, just a style problem more than anything else I think. We didn't like the way it functioned in play. It was easy to remember since it's on our cheat sheet but it just seemed excessive. A Shredder kills them dead dead dead, anything else gives them a chance to get back up. Put a Medic upgrade out there and they're quite rugged. (We played that Infantry without Tough, with a Medic upgrade, gained Tough/2 was this correct?) Our Heavy Infantry with Medic were getting back up after getting knocked down 50% of the time. That's pretty beefy to me. Final Observation. The more we play, the more we like it. It needs some polish (and illustrations and more examples!!!) but it's already the only CAV we play. We had started doing the d8 testing that Super JAG suggested but we don't even look at CAV 1 anymore. We do observe it's more complex than Warlord, however, maybe we're sci-fi snobs but the sci-fi game *should* be a little more complicated than the fantasy game. It's complex, but it's rewarding. When you win (I'm 1/1) you feel like you earned it, not that you diced it. You outmaneuvered, out fought, and out thought your opponent (STEALTH IS KING. -2 to the opponent's attack is gold. When you're up close and slugging it out STEALTH and then STEALTH some more. I love my little Panthers).
  8. lurkbeast

    CAV 2 Beta

    Premeasuring - since they didn't change the text in the good habits of play I'd say there's no pre-measuring by default just like Warlord. However, that's what the Scan action can do. Personally, I have no problem with that. After all, games that allow Pre-measure say that it's because the technology is sufficient to allow it. Here, in CAV 2, we get to see that technology in play. If you need to know how far it is to that rock, that building, or that clump of troops then Scan it.
  9. lurkbeast

    CAV 2 Beta

    Yup, also that's exactly how it works right now. The infantry takes a Shaken token so enemy Models are at a bonus to hit them as they disembark (opening scene of Saving Private Ryan anyone? Sorry, but if you disembark troops IN THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE ENEMY it's going to suck) and so my solution is to disembark troops out of enemy fire (which seems logical to me). But, when it's my activation, I perform a Rally as my first action then do whatever it is I wanted to do (which is the same thing as saying that I only get one action) OR I have the option of not performing a rally and doing two regular actions (but staying disorganized as I run up the beach or whatever to a safer rally point).
  10. lurkbeast

    CAV 2 Beta

    Wow. Hey dude, I want to make sure Reaper enjoys getting the feedback from us so we can make this game awesome. I read this post and my first reaction was... "did he not read the email Reaper sent? Is he trying to bust Reaper's chops?" Uh no offense, but Spartan, while I think it's awesome that our US Army soldiers have such a code of conduct etc. and are professional enough to not run in the face of the enemy and are disciplined enough to not get stuck into combat this is a game about another time and involves more than just the US Army. In my view of the CAV universe a Malvernian professional soldier would have no problem sticking a bayonet in the heart of a Terran or Rach and Malvernian "volunteer" troops bent to the will of the Grand Inquisitor would run if given half the chance (I play Malvernis by the way) and are certainly not going to be able to just hit and run. We've been asked to beta test the mechanics. Not the fluff. Maybe we should focus on the rules and mechanics and not about applying our own cultural morals (admirable as they are) and code of conduct on a fictional world. For example. In Warlord's it specifically states that each army/faction/whatever can be described as doing whatever they want. (looting may involve taking body parts, gold, etc.) However the game MECHANICS are the same. The enemy Model is taken out of play. Coup de grace means a tough model is taken out of play. In your army, they take them POW, in my army, we kill you and eat your liver. Your comment about troops leaving close combat "It's something we train on a lot and a decently trained team" ... wouldn't the Discipline Check reflect that? If it's a low Discipline.. they can't. If it's a high discipline, they can. It's a good MECHANIC that varies with the data cards and I like it. Also, since we were asked to provide feedback and suggest a fix, my suggested fix to the above would be to add a Special Ability (working name Disciplined) and functions as Fearless from Warlord (no Retreat) and in there make some comment about how they rarely kill enemy figures when doing a Coup de Grace. That takes care of Spartan's concern and leaves a good MECHANIC alone. Another one where I feel we may be focusing on the wrong thing. Push out of the way suggests Close Combat. Step Around means you don't bring the Model into base-to-base contact. Again, this is a good mechanic. I don't want to set up a firing line of infantry and have the other guy just squeeze past my line because I misplaced a stand so that he can squeak his base through without dealing with my guys. To me, that's dumb. If I put my models in my opponent's way, I want them to be dealt with or gone around. Again, to me this is a good MECHANIC. Maybe Spartan's post rubbed me the wrong way but I just wanted to bring these points up. We're here to test mechanics, not fluff. We should test mechanics, and suggest fluff. On with my own comments after reading the rules Since there's enough Negative about it in these posts I'm going to post the stuff I like. 1) Primary Platoons and Secondary Platoons. This is a combined arms game, if I wanted to play a game involving all gunships I'd write a scenario and play in it. I don't think the "default" game should allow players to get too far away from what made CAV awesome to begin with. A Combined Arms game with big stompy mecha. 2) Special Abilities. The versatility here is what I liked about Warlord and now CAV 2. I think it's cool that we can now make up just about anything. 3) Stealth. This is freaking cool. Probably the best "quasi-fluff" I've ever seen to explain why we're playing on a dining room table. It gives us long ranged weapons but doesn't force us to play on gymnasium floors. My gripes and suggested fixes I agree with Spartan on the cohesion thing. It's modern combat in the 23rd century, do we really need cohesion anymore? My suggested fix 1) do away with it or 2) let 'Disciplined' (as mentioned above) allow certain models to do away with it (I see Terrans, Ritterlich, Adon, and maybe Templars having it and only a few Rach and Malvernis). Coalition and Alliance. This is supposed to be like Good and Evil in Warlord... while it makes it a RAGE game... cool, it's a similarity... But I want to be able to fight my friends. Some play Adon... I play Malvernis. I want to be at war with Adon, not doing "training battles" all the time. My suggested fix, in the fluff refer to what used to be a coalition and an alliance and then leave them all fighting each other. Maybe the Coalition and the Alliance was short lived or something and it's degenerated (like what would have happened if Russia and the US had fallen out during WW2 instead of staying allies). Bounding Overwatch. I don't know if this is a gripe so much as a request for a clarification. Seems to me that Reaper's already put travelling overwatch in as the rules in the game for Defensive Fire and Cover Fire (force the enemy to be suppressed) is really close to Overwatch (it was when we played last night anyway, I suppressed an enemy then moved with another unit on a later activation). Is this supposed to take the role of Bounding Overwatch and Travelling Overwatch or not? We played CAV2 until 1 am last night. I think this game is basically done. Just a few tweaks here and there. We loved it. I had as much fun playing CAV 2 after playing CAV 1 all these years as I had playing CAV 1 after playing Battletech. It was "good times" all over again.
  11. lurkbeast

    Sabre afv

    Or a gunship.
  12. Personally, I hate metal bases. I would rather have a black plastic base so I don't have to worry about my paint getting chipped off the figure. Metal bases have their place, like if the figure would be unbalanced without the extra weight. I remember I wished that Reaper made metal circle cup bases (like their square cup bases) for some of my GW figures back when I used to play. I hated the way my tyrannids would fall forward on their faces. However, if the figure is balanced and does not need the heavy base and I use the figure for games then give me a plastic base. Touching up paint on a base is an irritation.
  13. Thanks for the comments, as a beta tester you've probably got more games under your belt than I but in the above example did not the cavalry already gain thier lance strike with no defensive strike? After the archers move away, true they are no longer pinned but what if in the next round the cavalry get the activation/initiative before the infantry/polearm unit? The archers would be pinned again, and worse they'd be charged by cavalry and be at a -2 penalty since they were shaken and had not yet had the opportunity to Rally... and be lanced again if they retreated too far. And also when the infantry move in during their round and attack, when it's the cavalry's turn couldn't they just move away also? Why would they stick around since they can disengage, travel a distance and then re-engage and regain the bonus of the lance? (edit: I just re-read lance, apparently reaper already covered this a lance unit cannot disengage and then re-engage the same unit though it can engage a new unit) Am I all wet or are these not valid responses from the attacker to the archers moving away?
  14. I hate panic rules. I especially hate panic rules tied to leaders. The game becomes "Kill the leader" and GW even went to far as to create a bogus "I'll take the bullet for you sir" rule to prevent that very thing. Whatever. In a game with big regiments sure, I'll deal with panic rules and they even make sense then. However, I don't want to deal with a bunch of cowards in a "fantasy" skirmish game with heroes and monsters and big tough guys where I am using less than two dozen models. Why would I have taken a coward with me on patrol? I won't even touch on fuzzy gamer math like debating "30% of a unit" during a game or other things like that. I want a clean mechanic. Now... that said... I don't like the fact that I cannot break from combat. I propose a change to the "Leaving Close Combat" rule. With my first movement action, I test for shaken and all that stuff as normal. However, if I fail and I am already shaken let me use my second non-combat action to break from combat. My guys are Shaken and I have sacrificed my attack action for the round... that's plenty of penalty for cowardice and I as the player gain the abiliy to pull my soldiers out of a bad situation (like getting devoured by a dragon). Nice and clean, no percentages.
  15. It says "successful or not" so I would say they take the damage. As for being harsh, if a grunt gets defensestrated out a second story window he's grease, why should he survive the same fall, attack without a defensive strike, and get a +1 to hit to boot just because he chose to voluntarily take the jump?
  16. If the command radius is reduced (I have no opinion either way) then the following would need to be addressed: 1) Fireball/Firestorm (AoE attack spells) would have to have a smaller AoE or their points cost should go up. 2) The Leadersless distance between two models should go down to whatever the sergeant's radius is I helped a close beta tester test out the rules and somebody in the program had commented or observed that in a 10 man warhammer 40k unit cohesion could result in a line 18 inches wide. So no matter what the Warlord sergeant should have a radius no smaller than 9. So I guess that would be 9 (sergeant), 12 (captain), 15 (warlord). I like the loose nature of the units, it's realistic within the scope of playing on a tabletop surface where you have to play with ranges anyway. In the army we tried to keep inside a 10m spread from the next guy on maneuvers. According to reaper matt they were using 1/60 (his post on ships) so that's about 6.5 inches on the table. So a unit of 10 guys could spread in a line 60 inches if they used "real" cohesion. I have no problem with 36 inches for a warlord. I also have no problem with 18 for a sergeant so long as my above two points are addressed (if I gotta stay tight, I want those wizards to pay through the nose for their AoE spells, artillery sucks no matter what you call it... fireball... air burst.. it's all the same). ps - Oh yeah, and it didn't matter if your unit got mixed up with another unit. You know who your lieutenant is.
  17. Oh, as for your other question. If you wish to get into the horrid quagmire that is 40K. Buy the starter box set which comes with the rules and enough miniatures to start your space marine army. Buy a Space marine codex. Pick up a cool commander type Model or Model that you feel like painting up as a commander. You're looking at about $100 investment to get space marines and a rulebook. Take it home, use the marines, sell everything else in the box online at ebay and recoup some of your losses or use the other army as cannon fodder on the bases of your space marines. Play the marines until you too eventually burn out as some of us have. Try the other armies that are not space marines at your own risk and peril to your bank account. What other games to suggest? Well I would suggest CAV for Sci-Fi or wait until Reaper completes their promised science fiction skirmish game. Or play CAV until the science fiction skirmish game is released.
  18. These are my reasons only, but I think that they are possibly shared by others who also don't play or no longer play 40k. Good 1) Cool minis 2) Lots of players all over the world 3) Interesting setting Bad 1) Napoleonic rules disguised as science fiction. Napoleonic rules.. one good volley of ranged fire... lots of hand to hand or close quarters battle. It's not real sci-fi... it's low-fi. 2) Violations of logic when cross referenced with fluff. Example... Terminator armor is supposed to be the nastiest armor the universe has ever seen... but it's destroyed 50% of the time when attacked by a sentient space fungus (Ork) with a shovel (choppa, whatever). A guy can crawl down the barrel of a planetary defense gun armed only with a little holy icon (rosarious) and survive the shot 50% of the time. A tank can be destroyed by a pistol (bolter to the rear armor of a leman russ). 3) Price. $12 for a character miniature. Plastic miniatures that cost as much as a pewter from Reaper. $40 for a vehicle. Games Workshop even admits to charging based on relative power level of the mini. So a powerful mini is going to cost me more than a peon... why? Because it has better game stats. 4) Rules changes - they change the rules all the time. new editions void old army lists. new rules come out with each White Dwarf with such speed that it's clear they are not carefully playtested. If it breaks the game, no worries. They'll just come out with a bigger, better special rule later. Woe unto you if your army list was the first supplement. It won't get any fixes until the next version of the rules. 5) Horrible relations with small time sellers, internet sellers, and the customer in general. So long as we are giving them our money, they couldn't care less about who we are and what we think. Trying to sell GW product for a discount online? Well we'll just "creatively interpret" the law and prevent you from doing so. We've got the lawyers to put your small time business out of commission in the courts so we'll never worry about monopoly legislation or lawsuits regarding price fixing. 6) Lots of miniatures required. Combined with 3 above this is really irritating. 7) Shoddy points balance. Games that use "points" are supposed to use those points to balance out the armies against each other. If a model costs 15 points it should do about 15 points worth of damage. A 30 point model should win 50/50 percent of the time versus two 15 point models. That's theory. Anyone that has played 40k knows that GW's points system is guesstimated at best and blatantly broken at worst. Well... there you are. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Take care, The Lurkbeast
  • Create New...