Jump to content

Super Jag

Members
  • Posts

    361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Super Jag

  1. Refreshing this thread..... Okay, so here's some feedback on this tournament I created. Thank you to Spire for also helping iron out wrinkles and experiment with variations on the format. The result is that it has proven to be a rather popular format in our respective areas. Here's some tidbits to think about: Players say they enjoy the straight up game play with out having to worry about objectives and such. I have been working out the wrinkles with the "combat ineffective" scoring format, while Spire has been testing out the damage track scoring method. IMO the combat ineffective system works better because it's simpler, practical, and makes sense (destroyed unit = full points, more than 50% DT's at end of game = half points). This also eliminates the time wasted by players trying to write down or track points scored during the game (remember... we're on 45-60 minute time limit). Also, with regards to the '70 Dictator, the owning player cannot throw away potential opponent points with his overdrive function. Those realistically are self induced damage points that could potentially lead to the unit becoming combat ineffective, thus resulting in 50% points to opponent. The "rounding" factor of decimal points has already proven to make the difference between a win and a loss. I.E.: the losing player received fewer points at the end of a damage track scoring system simply because the values were rounded properly (down) than they should have received by just using the original value of the destroyed units. Because repairs were involved the original value could no longer be used as additional damage tracks were inflicted. As a compliment to the CAV game system, the variety of force compositions has consistently proven to allow for evenly matched games. Therefore, players with reasonable choices and decent tactics have done well, and even won games despite the appearance of getting whooped. Players are catching on to the tactic of bringing 5 units (two sections = two initiative cards). The catch... is which one unit is in it's own section? Once that unit is destroyed, the extra initiative card is lost. Also, the extra unit limits total upgrades. The other common force composition is a standard section of four units with solid upgrades. Basically... this format works. If you're looking for something fresh and sensible, give this a try. You really don't need to tweak the format, but of course, if you do then please submit feedback. I know as it stands this could be a standardized tournament across the BL program without change.
  2. Super Jag

    The Hellcat

    For the record... I posted this new tournament format I created last month. Just look up the "Smashmouth Tournament" under this forum for details. Spire has been great about helping me iron out wrinkles and/or experiment with alternate variations on the rules. The result is that EVERYONE who has played it absolutely enjoy the format and prefer it over Warmasters. The biggest issue we're having now is whether to utilize the damage track scoring system or the "combat ineffective" scoring system (destroyed = full point value, greater than 50% DT = 1/2 point value of unit). Well, I take that back... the biggest problem is that one BROKEN unit... aka the '70 Dictator, but I digress. I'll refresh that original thread for anyone interested.
  3. Super Jag

    The Hellcat

    Nice work! Curious... have you been able to use it in games yet? And has it earned it's keep?
  4. LOL... Reminds me of something my drill seargent once said... "You three soldiers... half of you come with me."
  5. I was just asking one of the other Black Lightning Demo team members about that because he had familiars on separate bases while giving Warlord demonstrations. Seemingly the familiar doesn't "actually" do anything that requires it to need a model for representation. In fact he really liked one of his Reaper models that already had a familiar as part of the model itself (owl sitting on arm I think) instead of the other sorcerers with separate familiar bases. Personally I'd be inclined to have a separate familiar model but attach it and the owner to a slightly larger base and make almost a mini diorama out of it. Not sure if the alternate base size would cause problems though (since base sizes seem to have meaning in the game).
  6. Yeah... I too would love to use my Reaper Bugbear miniatures for Warlord. I'm guessing they'd fit in with the Reven army. For now I'm planning to use them as proxies for the Orcs (because I CAN'T STAND the sculpts of the Warlord Orcs... sorry Ben Siens, but honestly I've collected a lot of your other works from various game systems and YOU'VE DONE BETTER). Also, there's some other fantasy line Ogre's that would work great too. Unfortunately the number of Bugbears is very limited and I have very little time or energy to do all the conversions I would need to do.
  7. Hmmm... I've never seen this problem with CAV. Or were you speaking of Warlord? I've been fortunate enough to have Spire at the same recent two conventions doing demos of Warlord. Even though he was using what could be considered the most recent/accurate version of the rules prior to the actual release of the official book, I'd have to agree that Warlord shows promise. I'm very eager to get the new rulebook and begin playing.
  8. Super Jag

    New Cavs

    Ah yes... the centipede!!! Awesome looking unit. Sooner or later all the Borsig Spline vehicles will be out and I'll have a full compliment to my CAV Bug Squad, and be able to expand the theme into combined arms.
  9. So... where does my lowly ex-national guard puke, biomedical technician, left hand saluting, wanna-be salvation army officer, role fit into this equation?
  10. Original Rulebook = Cool Fluff, Core Rules, Obsolete data cards. JOR 1 = Mostly CAV units, a handful of tanks, aircraft, infantry, etc. and correct data cards. Also, there is errata and FAQ material along with scenario/optional rules that can be used. Finally, there is the point design system that allows you to understand how units are basically created and YOU CAN BUILD YOUR OWN (albeit it'll unlikely be disallowed in "official" events). Oh, and let's not forget about the cool colored photos in the middle of the book. JOR2 = Combined Arms emphasis, a bit more errata/FAQ updates. I hope that helps... good luck deciding and hopefully you'll jump into the game... You won't regret it.
  11. I completely understand your concerns. If you can afford to do so I'd recommend you pick up the JOR's. JOR1 is more CAV based with minimal vehicles and aircraft. JOR2 is the opposite, although the CAV's are even cooler. IMO this game (CAV) is one of the very few that I feel is worthy of keeping in my collection and a number of my friends feel the same way. Regardless of what changes occur and whether you like or dislike future versions, you'll always have the current format/rules/mechanics to fall back on. This current edition is definitely worth the investment.
  12. Hmmm... well since it works for me (logged in) and I do happen to be a "black lightning member" I suppose this is a possibility. Although, I really don't know whether that's the issue. Good luck. I'm sure one of the Reaper VIP will address it soon enough.
  13. For those of you having trouble finding the data cards by following the directions... I too didn't find it initially, but AFTER LOGGING IN it did indeed appear. Oh and BTW... LUCKY ME!!! Apparently the majority of the cards that I actually want aren't available, despite the fact that the models are displayed in the Casket Works as such (and I own a number of them already). Bummer dude... Ahem, ahem... any Reaper peeps notice this too?
  14. As for playing Chainmail... the game was lousy! The miniatures themselves seemed to be either GREAT or HORRIBLE and nothing in between for the quality of sculpts. I absolutely loved the Gnolls and Dwarves from that game. I still have those models in fact and found that they brought out a very high quality of paint work (pro level if I may be so bold as to blow my own horn). Unfortunately I've not been able to find a use for them and am seriously considering selling them on eBay or something like that.
  15. Huh? Not sure what you're getting at. Personally I think it's BAD POLICY to "require" players to make mandatory purchases with their force points. The beauty of the format as it is does allow for someone to "voluntarily" buy inititiative cards already. Besides the one they get automatically for have a force (4 or less) then they could improve their initiative odds with that extra card. That's something we've not playtested yet. Should be an interesting factor.
  16. BTW.... forgot to mention that I've been considering adjusting the initiative card system a bit for this format. Instead of 1 card per section (4 units), I would like to see how 1 card PER UNIT would work.
  17. I've begun this thread after discussion on the Warmaster rules. It is intended to provide an alternate form of CAV on CAV gameplay. Thus all the playtesting has proven that the following format has great potential. Basically all the core rules of the game are used as normal. We've not utilized optional rules to date. Sorry about the name... I've not actually come up with anything better yet. If nothing else it tells you what it is, which is virtually a toe to toe fight (except for the fact that someone might field a handful of IFM specialists like Sultans... hehehe). Smashmouth Rules: 1. Player gets 2,000 points to purchase any combination of CAV units (CAV only) including upgrades, and/or equipment swaps. Sections of 4 must be followed. 2. Players will play HEAD TO HEAD matches on a 4x4 foot table. 3. Each game has a 45 minute time limit (finish the last turn). 4. Ideally 3-4 games total will be played per gaming session (swap opponents each new game). 5. WIN/LOSS records will be kept (primary factor for determing tournament winner). In event of a tie, points differential will be used. Full point value of an enemy CAV are gained by destroying it and rendering it beyond 50% DT = 1/2 point value (i.e.: combat inneffectiveat the end of the game). No other points can be attained. Here's the feedback so far on the playtesting and why this format shows promise. a. Great creativity and fun deciding on what and how to field a 2,000 point force. So far we've seen fun and success from 2 ACE/ACE Superheavies, to 6 stock units (that's right... 2 initiative cards), to themed sections like 4 maxed out Khans, or my personal favorite, the BUG SQUAD. b. Games are fast but long enough to provide plenty of action. c. Multiple opponents can be played in the old fashion way... mano y mano (as opposed to the ganging up on one player problem Warmasters have). d. Scoring is simple and practical. Anyways... that's the nuts and bolts of it. Honestly, it has been great so far and between me and a couple trusted friends we have picked it apart to find flaws, but evidence points to it as being a great alternative to Warmasters.
  18. Agreed... I suppose it comes down to how much "abstract" thinking you want in the game and how much you're willing to "accept" the fact that miniatures are just "static" representations of reality (perceived sci-fi reality that is). You just CAN'T get a complete and accurate transfer of reality. Having said that... there is one great golden rule in CAV that would make the "pop-up rule" acceptable. Just apply some defensive fire and call it good. Personally I could go either way with it. The majority of players seemingly go with LOS is LOS. The more players can stick with the "core" rules, the better IMO.
  19. Super Jag

    Warmaster

    I don't recommend setting up deployment zones in the corners (unless each table edge is exactly the same length). It tends to lead to the players on each of the short end of the board to fight it out and then whoever is left over meets in the middle. We place deployment zones in the middle of each table edge (6x4 table). Then players have the option of potentially going after who they want instead of being dictated to move towards the nearest corner/opponent. Unfortunately there's no actual or official guidelines for Warmasters but most of what's posted already is pretty consistent. Here's what I have for rules. Keep in mind that I try to encourage sales and that's why I don't force players to keep the exact same section from qualifier to qualifier. WARMASTER Tournament:  1750 points total; Must have 4 painted CAV units, minimum/maximum!!!  All upgrades allowed as per JOR1 and/or JOR2 specifications. Remember WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get! (exception: armor upgrade does NOT need to be shown)  Players may change their sections/forces each event.  Point totals after all qualifying rounds will determine the 4 finalists. Games are 3.5 hours long (finish the final initiative cards). Last man standing is worth 700 points. Each damage track of damage inflicted by you gives you points equivalent to that particular unit's total points divided by its DT's + 1. E.G.: 70 Dictator 455 points divided by 7 (6 DT + 1). New players are very welcome to play! You can either play a separate demo or we’ll provide you a with a CAV section for the competition (ONE GAME MAXIMUM LOANER THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT – CANNOT BE BORROWED FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT). Avoid 3 player tables when possible. This would be the time for you to fill in as a 4th player and keep it even. DON'T FORGET THAT YOU ARE THERE TO RUN THE TOURNAMENT AND NOT TO COMPETE AS A PLAYER (unless you need to fill in... but not for personal gain... and if you do have to play, then let them know you have to play to win as you normally would). Frankly, as there are no "official" guidelines (which is obvious by the variances from area to area), I'd recommend you play with the basic format. Don't get carried away with optional rules, or homegrown rules, etc. Once you get the hang of it, then experiment during playtesting games and figure out why some rules/variances do and don't work. The Warmaster does have it's downsides... but when considering what it's purpose is, then it really is a good format. I'll start a separate thread of a new format I'm working on that has playtested with considerable approval thus far.
  20. And the problem with the current method is.............??? I'll give you a nod for creativity but frankly I don't see why someone would want to change a perfectly good method of determining TL. We both roll a d10 and add our modifiers... if I beat your score then I got TL. Why bother with referencing another chart? Keep the mechanics simple so players can concentrate on just playing/enjoying the game. Seems to me that most players prefer a contested dice roll instead of relying on the luck of the opponents' solo dice roll. Any particular reason for wanting to change the mechanics?
  21. Just under 2,000 points (lot's of laughs fun): 4 Khans, ace/ace crew, +1 armor, +1 repair, +2 movement. Just under 1,750 points (Warmaster fun): Bug Squad: Emperor Beetle (different variants but basically has a combination of Ogre guns and/or Emperor guns); Mantis, +1 armor, +2 pilot, Bergholm 22 breeder; Scorpion, +1 armor or pilot; Spider, M34 Target Lock, +1 WSO. Combined Arms games: Titan (Rhino minus both DFM's in favor of a Blitz's IFM); Sovereign; Butcher; Sultan. Any possible upgrades leftover points will allow (particularly a chain lock). Air Superiority: 2 Tsuiseki's and 2 Kharls. Respectively, drop the PBG and Heavy DFM in favor of upgrades like armor.
  22. Hmmm... well, from my understanding of the point design system and particularly the "Cost of Development" computations on page 149 of JOR1, I'd have to say that you could design multiple troop bays on a transporter as you have in mind. OF COURSE... take this with a grain of salt because I'm just using logic and am not the head honcho that could say yes or no. Frankly though, if it's within the spirit of the game then go right ahead and enjoy making the unit. Afterall, how often do you plan to use it in official tournaments? Hard to imagine your area buddies griping over this, especially if you followed the procedures in the book, for just casual gaming. Part of the fun is creating. So... according to page 149 of JOR1 under Unless I missed something, the point design system does NOT distinguish between a 3 infantry capacity or 1 infantry capacity... or in your case a 2 infantry bay transport ship. So... I say go right ahead with your project. If you feel guilty about it then maybe add step (7) value twice to your total cost of production (it's only a difference of approximately 5 points... depending on your # of DT's and movement values). Let us know what you come up with...
  23. Hmmm... less wasteful, eh? Does that explain the formations used in colonial warfare? hehehe. Just kidding of course... I couldn't resist, and please DON'T give me a history lesson. I too do some number crunching to find the most efficient units. I've found that I fair very well with certain "stock" units by utilizing efficiency in points when it comes to deciding alternative equipment/upgrade choices. As for super heavies... I have success against them by ignoring and outmanuevering them until the latter part of games because I know their speed rarely allows them to line up shots. Usually by the time I get around to attacking them I have softened them up with indirect and can attack it directly with multiple units. However, when using my Black Rhino (Blitz IFM pack, improved TL & ECM) I systematically walk right at my opponent softening up targets with the solid IFM attacks (supported with other units' IFM) and once I can line up the maxim's then the devastation occurs. Those two maxim's are plenty sufficient against most any target, and in defensive fire too. Anymore, I'd just assume use fast moving hard target killing specialists instead of super heavies. But, with the evolution of supers (having IFM's) I'm rethinking my strategies.
  24. Of course this questions smacks of "IT DEPENDS" type responses, but I am curious what your thoughts are regarding the "evolution" of the super heavy units from just direct fire capacity (e.g.: stock Ogre, Rhino, Centurion, Revenant) to utilizing superheavies with IFM weaponry (e.g.: Thunderbird, Mastodon, Emperor)? Personally I've become a big fan of super heavies with IFM packs ever since I modelled my Rhino with a Blitz IFM. It's just amazing the difference this combination of direct fire and IFM provides when one considers the slow speed of a super heavy. I'm seriously doubting whether it's worth the effort to play non IFM super heavies anymore. Although, I'm still a fan of the Ogre. Anyways... what's your opinion?
  25. Gee thanks... I suppose if it's an error it'll now get noticed and the prices WILL get increased... Just kidding... I see where you're coming from I think. Many of us who truly enjoy and appreciate what Reaper is all about are more than happy trying to support the company... even if it means an extra buck.
×
×
  • Create New...