Jump to content

CAV 2 Beta


Stubbdog
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Extrapolate that same theory and you have the other fun one. If you have line of site for direct fire you may do a defensive shot against a IF attack!.

 

so be sure your really hard to hit before you pop off that IF attack!

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's missing -- Heavy Infantry versions of Mortar Troops, Hunter Teams, and Shredder Teams.

 

And I had noticed that the rules for making an attack combined Direct and Indirect under one section -- and that the target model was able to defensive fire as long as it had line of sight to the attacked without mention of attack type.

 

It's just another way this version of the rules has taken something that needed a lot of discussion and explanation before and made it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments and questions from our first playtest Friday night:

 

1. The Rat special ability is out of alphabetical order.

 

2. Special abilities and Upgrades should be denoted separately on data cards. While they serve virtually identical in-game functions, it means you have to look in two different places when searching for an effect.

 

3. I think Engineers should be Bulky (and armored engineers should be Bulky/2).

 

4. I couldn't find anywhere where FIST is spelled out. Always spell out your acronyms for those (few) gamers without military backgrounds. *I* know you mean FIre Support Team, but I read a lot of Tom Clancy.... :;):

 

5. While it's stated that Indirect Fire doesn't require line of sight, nowhere does it state that the defender doesn't get cover (for, say, being in woods). We played that they don't.

 

6. Does the bonus from Barrage affect the drift roll? (We played that it didn't.)

 

7. Does Point Blank affect indirect?

 

8. Does PBG affect indirect? (That's an obvious "no," but the rules don't say otherwise. Naturally, we played that it didn't.) Note that this and the preceding three questions imply that Direct and Indirect attacks should each have their own set of modifier tables.

 

9. Run and Gun doesn't explicitly state that you can fire at any point in that action's movement. It does imply it in the last sentence (return fire).

 

10. Will there be cards for individual models as in Warlord?

 

11. We think the extra durability (caused by weapons only doing one point of damage per hit) really helps the game. The only problem we have is with infantry -- with only one damage track, it has been reduced in utility (Tough/x notwithstanding). We recommend infantry defense be increased to 10; to counteract this, increase Shredder to +3. Whether this is done or not, Dictators (and similar) are now too good at killing infantry. Hunter should apply a -1 or -2 when firing at soft targets (or increase it to a +3 to mirror the Shredder suggestion, and drop the RAV by one).

 

12. Consider an optional initiative that uses alternating activations (think Battletech), particularly for small games. While the increase in effective durability helps, it's still too easy to cripple a few things if you go twice (or thrice) in a row. Alternately, have the number of cards in the deck doubled or tripled once all setup and scouting effects have been dealt with. That should help even out the chances of going many times in a row.

 

My players loved the changes, and definitely think it's already a better game than CAV 1.0. This is mainly due to to the lack of opposed die rolls -- it removes some of the chance from the game, making tactics more important than dice (a major complaint about v1). Everybody's really enthused, and we're trying to make even more time to playtest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12. Consider an optional initiative that uses alternating activations (think Battletech), particularly for small games.  While the increase in effective durability helps, it's still too easy to cripple a few things if you go twice (or thrice) in a row.  Alternately, have the number of cards in the deck doubled or tripled once all setup and scouting effects have been dealt with.  That should help even out the chances of going many times in a row.

 

 

I would suggest playing bigger games. I used to have that same frustration with CAV 1 until we upped our points in our batles. For my group a quick game was 7500 points.

 

The luck involved in the game has just switched from opposed die rolls to the "luck of the draw". I miss the opposed die rolls. If card flips didn't go my way in CAV 1 at least I felt like I had some modicum of control with good armor and ecm rolls.

 

 

I agree with the decreased utility of single damage track units especially when you add in lingering damage. I like the idea of increasing the infantry's toughness too, partially to represent that they don't stand around in tight little knots. They take cover when shot at and that would make them very hard to kill with GC's. GGC's and things with AOE is what would really hurt them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PapaBees Volley was the original name for Salvo, where you see Volley read Salvo.

 

As for the discrepancy you guys are seeing with upgrades listed in with the SA's That is my fault if you read the SA list, you would see I did not put in part of that listing. If you will look in the SA list there is one listed as "Upgrade()" Thus overdrive should be listed on the datacard as "Upgrade(Overdrive)". This has been fixed on the datacards.

 

another quick one, you are correct PBG by its nature of being a Particle Bolt Gun does not affect indirect shots.

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I got to try this out. Something I noticed:

 

Is there a movement penalty for moving through living infantry? Pg 15 says killed bodies count as rough terrain, but does this also apply for living infantry?

 

AoE attacks and the Rear Arc bonus: This leads to a strange stiuation, where people will always fire just behind a unit instead of at it. In effect, they always 1 higher RAV unless they are actually using the AoE to target mutiple units.

 

Also with the rear arc bonus: With the high movement rates of the game, I feel it's a little too easy to get the rear arc bonus. Consider trying it where an attacker must start it's activation in the target's rear arc to get the bonus. This would make a rear attack more of a tactical choice when appropriate to do so, and less of a cheap easy bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also with the rear arc bonus: With the high movement rates of the game, I feel it's a little too easy to get the rear arc bonus. Consider trying it where an attacker must start it's activation in the target's rear arc to get the bonus. This would make a rear attack more of a tactical choice when appropriate to do so, and less of a cheap easy bonus.

Wasn't this the reason for not having that bonus in CAV 1 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut reaction with rear arc is that it shouldn't be there (doesn't the CAV spin to do defensive fire simultaneously anyway? -- which then is the true "rear" arc?) However, so far we haven't had any real problems with it.

 

Some of the really fast units don't have any problem getting the rear shots, but that's probably as it should be. Also, remember that you don't necessarily have to face in the direction that you moved at the end of your movement, because you're no longer paying MM for facing changes beyond 60 degrees. Just because you walked away from that Rhino doesn't mean you have to turn away from that rhino. . .

 

And as for moving through infantry, the bodies are only rough terrain because they can no longer get out of the way like living infantry can. . . ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by moving into base to base contact with a infantry stand you are then entering close combat with Infantry....the infantry should then teach you the error of your ways.

 

Mad Pat

That's only half-right, Pat.

 

I think he was asking about friendly infantry. It's explicitly stated under Obstructions that infantry and gunships don't block movement, as long as you don't end your movement on top of them in any way. It' not until a little ways down that the clarification about being B2B with an enemy stops movement immediately appears, and you can't engage a gunship in close combat anyway. . .

 

Maybe the section on obstructions needs to be clarified to say something like "infantry teams on the same side as the model being moved" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest playing bigger games. I used to have that same frustration with CAV 1 until we upped our points in our batles. For my group a quick game was 7500 points.

There are two problems with that:

 

1. Space. While the slightly slower movement of CAV 2.0 mitigates this somewhat, I wouldn't want to play 7500 points on anything smaller than, say, 10'x6'. It's rather hard to find a table that big, and playing on the floor makes it too easy for my daughter to join in. I can make an 8'x8' at the FLGS, but it's hard for people to reach the middle of the table.

 

2. Cost. Yes, most of the people in this discussion can easily field 10k+ points, but most people can't. I think we lose one of our great selling points if we require a $200+ outlay to get started. I got quite a few people interested in CAV when I told them they could have a good all-purpose force for $100. I'd rather not have the game be quite so card-luck dependant at small sizes.

 

Besides, how hard is it to include a line recommending, as an optional rule, that the number of cards in the initiative deck be at least 12, and that the number of cards per platoon be doubled (or tripled) if necessary to create that. Cards tend to come in groups of 52 - why waste it?

 

The luck involved in the game has just switched from opposed die rolls to the "luck of the draw".  I miss the opposed die rolls. If card flips didn't go my way in CAV 1 at least I felt like I had some modicum of control with good armor and ecm rolls.

Except that without opposed die rolls, single- and double-point shifts in armor (such as are created by cover) are worth more, making it easier to twist the odds in your favor (especially when facing big guns' defensive fire). Sure, it may *feel* like you're doing something when you're rolling dice on defense, but the overall effect is to increase the randomness of the game (with a corresponding decrease on the effectiveness of good tactics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel, are you saying that you have trouble with initiative deck draws being one-sided at 3-4 platoons per side? I don't think the games ever got much above five sections per side during our last league and we only had one instance where sombody truly got hosed by a one-sided deck stack (poor Sumicus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Space. While the slightly slower movement of CAV 2.0 mitigates this somewhat, I wouldn't want to play 7500 points on anything smaller than, say, 10'x6'. It's rather hard to find a table that big, and playing on the floor makes it too easy for my daughter to join in. I can make an 8'x8' at the FLGS, but it's hard for people to reach the middle of the table.

For a second I thought all those kids were yours, then I read the text.

 

About space I have the same problem, the largest table I can conjure up is 6'x4' which really is as big a table as you can expect players to have access to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...