beta discussion

[Stubbdog]

Just wondering how much people have used these so far in their playtesting.

 

Part of this thread is just to kinda talk and get my thoughts together. I find that as I write messages to tell or ask you guys stuff, sometimes my own opinion kinda changes or adepts or whatnot as it makes me think more about it separated away from the original situation it happened.

 

I have done a few games and still getting the two kinda mixed up with each other sometimes.

 

But, think I finally got them down this past weekend.

 

Found three discussion points on Scan for Fire:

 

1.) Gets a little confusing when you take the situation of the fact that the scan gives the result of doubling your listed range, unless doubling your range gives you a range of more than 60 inches. Don't know, maybe just takes playing with it a few more times before I get the hang of it. But, could be explained a little better in the rules for when you take a Specter with a 42 inch normal, double it (84) and then add 6 for IDF for a 90 inch range, but your scanner only went 60 so you still get the -2 range penalty for anything between 61-90.

 

I understand that playing on tables that size are not gonna happen all the time, but I am not talking table sizes here, I am talking about the scan itself.

 

2.) Firing IDF at a point verses at a model after having done a scan. Situation. I scan 3 enemies and find them to be within my 60 inch perimeter of the scan. They also happen to be travelling in a bunch and are all within 2 inches of a central point to each other.

 

But, I was told that to get the benefit of the Scan for Fire, I had to target one of the models, and not the central point between them.

 

I just wanted to bring this up for discussion to see what others thoughts were. I would imagine that just cause I scanned an enemy target to be at one spot doesnt mean that I have to aim my shot right at that spot, but rather beside him for maximum potential damage against multiple targets as long as the target point was also within the perimeter of the scan, or said another way, I dont see how aiming at an enemy model gets to negate the range penalty, but aiming for the spot right beside him doesn't.

 

 

1.) Personally, I think it might be better for the scan for fire to be constricted to indirect fire only. I played a test game this past weekend, against 2 other players on a 4x8 table (1 CAV platoon each). Obviously we had a slightly unbalanced start with one person forced to start in the middle in one edge, and the other two players in the corners of the opposite edges (think a big triangle). Due to the way initiative and just general play that happened, the other two players basically got in a stand and deliver type of shooting match with each other. So, Idecided to test out the scanning and other long range type of possibilities. I noticed that I could just sit back, scan and fire away without ever really moving.

 

Granted with IDF you only get the single attack (except a few exception CAVs) verses the standard 2 direct fire attacks. But I could sit behind a piece of terrain and plunk away. It worked quite nicely (except for the issues noted above).

 

Now for the discussion aspects that lead to my thinking. I guess I had initially associated the scan to fire with indirect weapons, and it wasnt til Mad Pat told me several turns into our playing that it could also be used with direct fire that I tried it. Obviously it was very affective, especially since my two opponents were still too wrapped up in each other to come over at me.

 

But, it also brought up the side discussion that had they decided to stop attacking each other and come at me, of what the outcomes might have been.

 

a.) I would have have the option of moving and firing with the -2 until they were inside my 1st range.

b.) I could sit still, fire with salvo for 3 shots at -2 until they were inside my 1st range

c.) I could sit still, fire at -2 then go into stealth mode

d.) I could scan for fire, fire with no penalties

 

Given those choices, until the enemy is weakened, the first 2 options weren't as appealing as the second 2, and option c still gave me penalties to my attack so option d was the option of choice.

 

Of course, my opponent would have the same options coming back at me.

 

And it could be argued that he/she might have run gone with option a, doing a move and fire or a move and Run and Gun to try to get that much closer to where he could open up other options.

 

But, the discussed opinion was that since they were sitting at pretty much the maximum of that 60 inch distance away from me, it would have taken a minimum of 2 turns for them to move inside the 1st range band. and I would be firing with no penalties while they would be firing with penalties if they decided to go with any of the first 3 options...

 

With the idea that they could use direct fire weapons with the scan for fire, they would probably just sit still and choose option d back at me, meaning that the whole game could have come down to a stand and deliver from 50-60 inches away...

 

So, my thinking was just simply that by restricting the Scan to Fire to IDF only, you lower the chances of someone just sitting back and firing from distance...

 

 

So, again, just wanted to see if anyone else had really tested it at any length yet.

[tabascojunkie]

One thing I can say is that after being the recipient of said scans and being torn apart from the other end of an 8 foot table, my desired response, withheld due to mixed company, was "Will someone please kill that motherf----- !!" But it was a very fun game.

[Erion]

I think part of your confusion comes from mixing up the two uses for Scan.

 

Scan for targets has a 60 inch limit. You have a 60 inch scan radius and may choose up to three models within that radius to take direct measurements from. My only concern with this is if you're using a tape measure to find out what's in that 60 inches to begin with, you have a good chance of getting a passing measurement of everything within that scan radius. Maybe it should be re-worded so that you can choose up to three targets and may then measure to see the distance from your center point to theirs, up to 60" away (which, if you aren't on a short board edge, pretty much covers the entire table anyway).

 

The single effect of scan to fire is to double the scanning model's range. It has no stated limit of 60 inches. I think of it as an active scan to increase firing solutions on more distant models.

 

Once you separate the two into their distinct definitions, you'll probably find find that most of the problems go away.

 

As for your target point, I haven't been able to find anywhere in the text where it says you have to target a model that was one of the three included in your scan for targets action. I think it's very likely that you could scan three targets moving in a somewhat close formation in order to remove stealth tokens from them and then fire at a central point in order to hit them at all without the modifers for stealth on your attack roll. You do get a bonus if you have wizzo and a platoon-mate scanned your target as a scan for targets action, but the sitation you described just doesn't exist in the rules as far as I can tell.

 

Come to think of it, should stealth apply to attack rolls from indirect fire? I understand the roll to see if it drifts, but should a stealthed model be less likely to actually take damage from an explosion it's standing in the middle of just because of active camo?

[Spartan6]

but should a stealthed model be less likely to actually take damage from an explosion it's standing in the middle of just because of active camo?

Nope. There's absolutely no reason it should take less damage just because it's stealthed.

[Stubbdog]

Scan for targets has a 60 inch limit. You have a 60 inch scan radius and may choose up to three models within that radius to take direct measurements from. My only concern with this is if you're using a tape measure to find out what's in that 60 inches to begin with, you have a good chance of getting a passing measurement of everything within that scan radius. Maybe it should be re-worded so that you can choose up to three targets and may then measure to see the distance from your center point to theirs, up to 60" away (which, if you aren't on a short board edge, pretty much covers the entire table anyway).

 

The single effect of scan to fire is to double the scanning model's range. It has no stated limit of 60 inches. I think of it as an active scan to increase firing solutions on more distant models.

Come to think about it, that is how I had read the rules too, and that is how we started out playing. Then Pat told us otherwise midway thru the game. But to his disclaimer he was overlooking a couple of games going on and maybe just did the same thing I was doing now in confusing the two.

 

So the scan to fire doubles the range not worrying about a 60 inch limit.

 

Well, my discussion on this is still valid. Who thinks this type of scan should only be allowed for IDF type attacks. Cause a Rhino with 3 shots at 60 inches with no penalty is just a little too nasty in my opinion. There would not be a reason for him to move ever.

 

 

Come to think of it, should stealth apply to attack rolls from indirect fire?  I understand the roll to see if it drifts, but should a stealthed model be less likely to actually take damage from an explosion it's standing in the middle of just because of active camo?

 

This discussion also came up at one point in our game (or rather it came up in the game on the next table). We had a very small discussion but do to time constraints for the most part we just kinda said we would discuss it more later and went back to playing.

 

Now that you bring it up and make me think about it. I think it is a very valid question. Against IDF, Stealth really has no bearing. Cause the person has already rolled against drift. And just cause your armor changes colors doesnt mean it protects from a "burst" type of damage.

[Mad Pat]

You guys are correct and I was incorrect on sat. There is no max range at which you can set your target for scan for fire. And another clarification as well.

 

Specter decides to shoot at dictator.

 

Specter scans for fire, and targets the dictator.

 

Thus range is 42+6 for IF attack, times 2. Your specter is now shooting at 96 inches to soften up the other team on their way into the board.

 

As for Scan for fire being limited to IF only, not gona happen. If your Rhino really wants to sit still and Scan for fire all day and waste all his non combat actions on scanning and not moving, well more power to him, because he's going to find out that Speed is life, stagnation leads to death.

 

it was a great day having all that CAV played on Sat, thanks to everyone who came out.

 

By the way folks, the guys were using small unit int decks, comprised of one card per CAV in the platoon. And using much to Darksouls grumbling the defensive fire reserves optional rule found on page 131 of JOR1. Obviously modified for CAV2.

 

Another quick recommendation for testing. When playing large games with multiple opponents, IE team a, b and c. When a unit is stealthing, place a stealth token down for each opponent team, and only remove stealth tokens for the teams that successfully remove stealth. Thus unit from team a scans a stealthed unit from team b, and removes the stealth token, but team c has yet to scan that unit and it is still hidden electronicly from them.

 

Mad Pat

[Erion]

I'm intrigued about your "Movement is Life" statement Pat. Is there something coming we haven't seen yet or are you just referring to the fact that (as I stated a couple of pages ago) there are lots of reasons not to stand still?

[Mad Pat]

Nope nothing new, just agreeing with your statement that you really really don't want to stand still. This was driven home to me again on Sun when I was again playing Paintball, stand still and your a target, move and well you have a better chance.

 

We have so many ways to become a target in CAV 2 that it just makes since to keep moving and use the terrain to your advantage. Force them to move, keep the game flowing and it will be much more enjoyable.

 

Mad Pat

[Spartan6]

Force them to move, keep the game flowing and it will be much more enjoyable.

Just keep the rear arc I'll make 'em move

[Erion]

I'm not going to go off on a rant about it again, but you so do not need the rear arc to make someone keep moving.

[Spartan6]

I'm not going to go off on a rant about it again, but you so do not need the rear arc to make someone keep moving.

No, you're right, I don't need it, I just like it.

[Erion]

OK, that I'll give you.

[Spartan6]

LOL