Jump to content

Trilan

Bones Supporter
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trilan

  1. Hmmm.. Crazy 8's idea doesn't sound bad to me... Though I have an thought for a variation on it that might work... instead of reducing the ranges for DF weaponry what about doubling the range band penalty, and leaving it where it is now for MA.
  2. I support camp 1, sort of. I'm all for the missile boats not getting to perform defensive fire, but on the other hand I think that taking it away from transports is a bad idea. I'd think if any change were made to them you would want to restrict them to defensive fire only rather than having them go rambo after they unload their cargo.
  3. I know this is a stupid question but I'm sure it'll come up later anyway... If the missile state is used as a non-combat action does it incite defensive fire?
  4. Well.. you can't do it now since you have to begin and end on the ground but it would be pretty darn spiffy if jump infantry could close assault airborne targets...
  5. Really the only problem I am seeing with this whole affair is the Terran special ability, not a problem with the strikes themself at all, since none of the problems displayed here would be an issue if the pool was significantly smaller. Soo.. what if the Terrean ability was changed so that all of the Terran units have a "psuedo" FIST/1. Any terran unit can fire a level one strike, but only those units that actually have FIST on that stat line can buy them. If you want to compensate for the loss of the pool, you could further stipulate that models with wizzo gain FIST/2 (once again for firing only, not purchasing).
  6. Actually you don't have that option with the new rules without a truly massive table due to the presence of the range bands rather than a defined range. For example a Thunderbird firing at a hard target with a DV11 unit at a range of 64 inches has a 50% chance to hit (terrain mods), and can easily close to 64" in the first turn before the second player gets to move a unit. Plus if he uses IF instead then the number of attacks goes down, but the 50% range increases to 76". And sucessfully scanning to fire would add a further +2 to hit on the IF. Extending out to the third range band, the Thunderbird can hit lengthwise table edge to table edge on an 8' table with a 27% chance to hit. I only checked stats on the Thunderbird, but there are plenty of 32" range units... and a handful of 36"ers, including the Manitcore which can IF 84" in it's second band. With ranges like that you rule out playing (with tactics anyway) on someone dining room table, or open day at a local gaming store where they have to put 2 games on their 8' tables due to lack of space.
  7. You're right about it being personal preference, and I do agree with you about the starting just out of range... It's really frustrating if your playing something like warhammer and it takes 3 rounds to get your dwarves into combat, but at the same time if there's no planning needed then you might as well go play Missile Command...
  8. The ranges are exactly why I like the delayed deployment idea over extending the deployment zone. Even at the current size on a 4x4 or 4x6 table it doesn't feel like there is much in the way of tactics, since unless the table is jam packed with scenery your going to be mixing it up on round 1. Expanding the deployment zone won't do anything to help with that problem, but dropping in a unit at a time would, while killing the first strike problem as well. For the most part the new rules have the feel of playing something like Unreal Tournament rather than Rainbow Six (pardon the comparison). The more I have played of the new version, the more it starts to feel... flat I guess. Don't get me wrong, I like the addition of the engineering and strike assets and all, and simplifing the rules is great. But... I never got tired of play the original CAV, whereas with the new rules I've already pretty much burned out already. I don't think there is really that much of a loss from the original in terms of loss of tactics, but the lack is more noticable now, because in the original you had so much more to do on the defending side with the contested combat rolls. Now all you can do look for cover to run and gun units out of, or for convienient clusters of targets to strike (left out defensive strikes since theres no real change there)...
  9. You know... I kind of like the idea of not having a deployment zone at all and just a deployment edge, with the models coming on-board the first time the card comes up. The solution of it screwing the first player is to simply have recon units effect the first turns card pulls instead of just the chosing of the deployment area (esp since individual units wouldn't be getting deployed there anymore), that way the penalty goes to the side that has the worst battlefield intel. Scout units could start on the field but be considered to be camo'ed automatically. I think this is the most elegent solution to the problem since it fixes first strike situations without hampering strikes or putting special case rules in place. Heck it even leaves an interesting possibility in place where you could pass on moving a unit when it's card comes up so that reinforcements arrive later in the game. As Crazy 8 (I think) said, that way you keep you opponent guessing as to what they are fighting.
  10. That's true... I did forget about IF... But that's easy enough to rectify by instituting a flat shortrange penalty for the first range band or two. The thing I thought about this was it would have the same effect over all, there's a benfit to closing. Plus it scales up slightly more quickly, but not enough to require a major rebalancing, for example a Thunderbird at 72" currently would be at a -4, where with the proposed change it would be at -5. Not a huge difference, but enough that the player would probably want to close some. Anyway... like I said I'm not attached to this, it was just a thought. I know we have been bad about spacing the calculation for short and point-blank since it is an exception to the range modifiers.
  11. The way I look at it either ruling on the Ogre works... Having three direct attacks is fair because it does have 3 main guns, and having 2 DA's + Dorsal can make sense because there might not be enough power to run all three while moving. Neither one scares me when facing it (I don't use those clunky BS CAVs so it'll never benefit me either way)... because either way my opponent is going to pay for it, either by sacrificing some movement or by paying however many extra points per CAV the devs value the guns at. I will say from my personal viewpoint, I think Dorsal Gun does work better on the Falcon which has different guns in the secondary positions, and less so on the Ogre with it's 3 identical cannons. But like I said either one works from a technical standpoint, the explanation is just fluff in the JOR.
  12. Yeah... I really like the way the first ed book was written. I was assuming pretty much the same thing... keep the data from the first one and add what's need to bring it up to the current date. I really like how little direct impact gameplay is having on story... unlike a certain other mecha games updated version ;)
  13. With the testing for decreasing range.. I got to thinking, do we really need the modifiers for short range? It seems like things could be streamlined by (for example) cutting all the ranges in half, and reducing the band penalty to 1. If you tied this by an (more or less) across the board increase of 1 to RAV's it seems like you could get close to the current numbers and cut some things out of the attack roll calculations. Anyway, it's just a suggestion... figured it would save a few seconds and be one less thing to forget during a firefight. I would have given this a shot before posting about it to see how it played out for us, but I'm gonna be away on vacation for the next week or so. (which by the way we're headed toward Niagara and Concord, Mass... Any one know of good stores around those parts?)
  14. Yeah... I had intended to post about that too. The Puma's flamer seemed awfully underpowered considering it's a vehicle mount. But I couldn't decide how to suggest it be handled... Cause it could either be a higher flamer value, or a wider dispersion... The problem with increaseing the value is that the damage would scale up vs vehicles too, and I wouldn't think they would be that vulnerable to the flames. And I really wouldn't want to bog the game down with 2 different size flamer templates. Maybe something like adding a shredder type effect to vehicle flamers would work. That way it would be more effective vs infantry and light vehicles, but NBC-type craft would still be protected.
  15. Chrome's idea sounds pretty workable to me too... you can either stand and deal with the threat or blow throw and risks some shots at your back. I'll see if we can give it a go on Wed, and see how it works out.
  16. Is it intentional that there is no upgrade to provide chainfire, or is this just an oversight? I seemed to remember there being some discussion about it a while ago, but when i searched for 'chain' i only came up with 2 unrelated results.
  17. Yeah, plus how many game stores are running 6' wide tables... The game needs to fit on 4x4,4x6,4x8... No problem on those tests... I was wanting to try that out this time, but forgot all about it with all the shiny newness ;) Plus we didn't mess with Strikes or Gadgets this time, and I really want to see those in practice.
  18. I didn't really care anyway... Just had my T-bird drop some munitions on them to clear the road ;) Just thought I should relay what came up during play. One thing I did think of that would be nice tho (as an optional rule) that i didn't see was the ability for infantry that have breached a building to fire using it as cover, and getting a specific bonus beyond normal cover. Maybe something like removing soft temporarily. That could make city fighting a bit more interesting.
  19. Well... after the first nights play, I'm pretty pleased with the way things work (though I do miss the contested combat rolls of CAV1). The game took a lot longer to play than CAV1 did, but I'm chocking that up to having to constantly resort to the rulebook. Reading through the rules I had thought that gameplay would be extremely static, but in practice that wasn't the case. Particularly with my aircraft, they would be constantly flying out of cover to strike and then drifting back to a protected position. Most of the specials worked really well, and made sense in terms of the units they were on. And I have slightly revised my oppinion of the Naginata. I still think they are undergunned, because they had minimal impact on the fighting, but they make great bricks with their armor and deflect and were able to provide cover for some of my models thanks to it. Indirect Fire seemed greatly improved from the CAV1. In fact that's all I used my Thunderbird for all night. We did use the alternate drift method of a d10 and d6 for our rolls. I'm pretty sure we were doing this right, but I couldn't explicitly find it, but if you have 2 IA then you roll drift seperately for both right? I'm not sure if we were doing coverfire correctly or not, but it didn't seem that effective. Do you get to supress more than 1 unit with each action? Because it takes an awfully large expenditure of units to negate the d10+5 that the defender gets if all you recieve is a d10+the mods from the table (which is how we read that rule). From what we saw it was more effective to just gun the unit down, so I'm thinking we were screwing something up. The one kinda negative I did notice was that ranges are AWFUL large. We were playing on a 6' table, deploying on the short sides and with one exception had only 1 round where we suffered the +2 for range. Even on a standard 8 foot table you'd only have 1-2 more rounds of long range in most cases (assuming both forces advance, and you aren't playing with more than 2). And I can't imagine how-to setup a 3 player game fairly on a 4x8 table. On a 4x4 you could be fair but it'd be damn bloody.
  20. You actually shouldn't need to put something in specifically concerning getting a bonus on RnGs, because the wording does say cancels 2 of the penalty rather than giving a bonus. One of the other questions that came up last night, but we didn't have time to test.... Was what if the Wizzo allowed you to negate the non-combat sacrifice for things like Salvo, since in theory he's the one settign up the attack rather than the pilot. I think this came from the same idea that sacrificing movement makes it feel like your a defensive unit that I mentioned in the thread about the Ogre. I wasn't too concerned about it in our testing, but then I only had one CAV with Wizzo, and it was sitting scanning to fire and indirecting every turn.
  21. Yeah, that was pretty much the argument I used, that the friendlies were justy shuffling around during an off-phase so it wouldn't affect them when they activate. But I did see his point on the enemy infantry too, since no matter how many guns a foot troop has it's gonna be hard to stop 80 tons of armor moving towards you at 50mph.
  22. No, not really. It was very effective if all three hit, and pretty much obliterated a Naginata with one salvo that way (thanks to one being a crit as well). But no more so than my flight of Tsuiseki's using Salvo. Truth be told I had more trouble with his Vanquisher than with the Ogre, though that was due to IF rather than the new changes. That being said, on Dorsal 1 vs 3 attacks... The place where doubletap and I differed on it was mostly play style. He was very concerned about having to give up the non-combat for dorsal making it feel like the Ogre was a defensive rather than offensive unit. Whereas I thought it would be worth the point savings that taking the penalty would give (not that it'll ever effect me directly since I play Terran and if I went with anything else it'd be KW).
  23. Okay... We did some testing last night, and my impressions were that Dorsal gun was by far the best version for the Falcon. Basically I rolled dice for each possible set of abilities to see how things would work out differently. And out of 10 linked rolls only 1 cause a hit on the reroll, whereas the dorsal's usually landed a blow when I used them. Retaliate didn't really have a good test as only 2 shots were taken at the falcon, tho it would have had 50% success in landing an extra defensive point. My opponent was using the other three CAVs since two of them fell in the UCORs he plays and we figured the same person comparing the sabertooth and vanquisher side by side was the best bet. I didn't get a good feel for the changes on those two, but on the Ogre it was definately in it's favor to have the 3 attacks, followed by dorsal, and finally retaliate. Retaliate may have come off better, except that the ogre never seemed to get a chance to use it successfully. The CAV went down quick and only succeded in landing one defensive strike the whole time. Like I said tho, I wasn't playing the ogre first hand so when doubletapp posts he may have different feelings.
  24. I had a question about the infantry stopping your advance thing? Is there a specific reason why you can move through your own troops but not enemy infantry? We had this discussion while playing last night, and it actually made less sense to us that you could move through your own guys since you would be worried about hitting someone, whereas when your hundred ton CAV would be happy to hit some squishy enemies. We weren't talking so much in terms of a crushing attack that caused damage but more that you could pass through and give a shaken token as they scrambled out of the way.
  25. I realize that's the way it's setup, and that's what I was alluding to with the part in parenthesis. I was just trying to give him an explanation fluff-wise if he had had his heart set up firing the missiles without giving up the non-combat action.
×
×
  • Create New...