CAV 2 Closed Beta v1.1

[Stubbdog]

i like both styles as well, my point was simply that there should be some penalties to shooting that far and with the scan to fire there really isnt.

 

With the current ranges and the current way range bands work there is none.

 

Erion, on a 4x4 table, I agree with you, it does not take very long to move into direct fire range and establish your various SAs, but on a large table, with a high RAV, I am gonna cripple you before you ever get close enough to use those SAs, especially since most of your SAs, you have to give up your non combat move to get them.

 

Also, remember that Scan to Fire works with Direct fire weapons as well. I didnt want to imply that lobbing stuff was the only way to use STF. Just usually the terrain keeps this from happening. My point is the same there though. With non-contracting range bands, with a STF a CAVs range is just a bit radiculous from a gaming perspective (especially when you take into account that most people will follow the book and play on a 4x4 to 4x6 size table.)

 

Contracting range bands wont get rid of the idea of STF nor will it do away with people who like to stand around and lob things. It just lowers the amount of hits that will happen across a 6 or 8 or more foot table... It will try to get people to get within the first or second range band to fight most of there battles, and that is still a large amount of range and space to fit within...

 

Forgive me I will get off this soapbox now. I have beaten this horse long enough.

[Erion]

Since when do I need to give up my NCA to use Hunter/Shredder/PBG?

 

Yeah, I have to give up my NCA to Use Salvo and Overdrive, but to the best of my recollection they're the only two. Maybe Burst.

[Chrome]

A lot of the gunships don't have the Soft SA, specifically HK's, but not exclusively. Is this an oversight or a change in design? If its a change, any reason why?

Is this going to get an official answer? It'll help w/the playtesting. It seems kinda stupid to have all of my Dictators off chasing down gunships.

[Erion]

There's a lot of stuff I've asked that hasn't been posted yet.

Maybe we'll be getting a beta 1.2 document pretty soon.

 

Now, for today's question:

 

Stacking Counterbattery: Model A has Counterbattery and uses an indirect fire attack which activates the Counterbattery on Model B. Model B uses Counterbattery to return a Defensive Fire attack using indirect fire. Does Model A get to return a Defensive fire attack for the Counterbattery DF from Model A?

 

As usual, I think I have the common sense answer but this should probably be clarified.

 

Common Sense Answer: A model may not use Defensive fire during its own activation. It covers all the situations where this might come up.

[Stubbdog]

I would say, "no"

 

But it does bring up some interesting other scenarios to ask about, for example:

 

1. CAVs A and B are a team against X and Y. All have indirect fire capability but only B and Y have counterbattery. A lobs a shot at X and it sets off Y's counter. But, Y's counterbattery shot drifts and lands near B.

 

Does B now get a counterbattery shot?

 

2. Same situation, this time A lobs a shot at Y, but it drifts and hits near X but outside of the 6 inch radius area needed to normally set off a counterbattery shot.

 

Since the shot was declared as being targetted at Y, does Y get a counterbattery shot even though it drifted?

 

 

I am sure you could probably think of a few more situations that we could ask about.

[Joel47]

Common Sense Answer:  A model may not use Defensive fire during its own activation.  It covers all the situations where this might come up.

This rule should definitely be adopted. It makes sense, and prevents wierdness like the situations DChihorn just mentioned.

[Erion]

I would say, "no"

 

But it does bring up some interesting other scenarios to ask about, for example:

 

1. CAVs A and B are a team against X and Y. All have indirect fire capability but only B and Y have counterbattery. A lobs a shot at X and it sets off Y's counter. But, Y's counterbattery shot drifts and lands near B.

 

Does B now get a counterbattery shot?

 

2. Same situation, this time A lobs a shot at Y, but it drifts and hits near X but outside of the 6 inch radius area needed to normally set off a counterbattery shot.

 

Since the shot was declared as being targetted at Y, does Y get a counterbattery shot even though it drifted?

 

 

I am sure you could probably think of a few more situations that we could ask about.

1) If A&B are in the same platoon, no, because it's currently on it's own activation. Otherwise Yes.

 

2) All we need to do is clarify counterbattery by saying something like "final target point" or "Target Point (after drift)" and this stops being a question. Of course, the target point is defined as moving with the drift roll in the rules for indirect fire and drift, but the added clarification in the Counterbattery SA wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Erion]

Critical hit suggestion: Critical hits that do enough damage to cause a model with Tough/x to take a toughness check should get an Automatic coup de grace.

[Erion]

Just an observation fom last night's game:

 

When the first shot fired against you is defensive, is a critical hit, and does enough damage to send the Duelist that was fired at crashing to the ground, it's going to get ugly, quick.

 

I managed to turn it around, but just barely. If we had bothered to add up victory points It might have ended up being too close to call. My last remaining CAV only had 1 DT remaining. The only thing that kept me going was the Templars' total domination of initiative.

 

Masters of Energy is wickedly powerful, but I didn't find it unbalancing, especially considering the outcome of the game. It might have gone even more in my favor had my defensive fire worked more than the three or four times that it did in the entire game. I Think ForceCommander did as much or more damage with defensive fire than with his regular attacks. This was his first game, btw, and he's hooked. Syram's CAV's have him making goo-goo eyes.

 

2500 Points, with ten total platoons on the table and we were done in under two hours. Given that it was a first-timers game, that's not too shabby. It's the biggest CAV2 game I've played yet, and the system comes together beautifully at that level. The only thing we left out was instants, and that was because I wanted a mostly balanced game for his first time. The Transition from Warlord to CAV was very smooth. ForceCommander picked things right up and played pretty much like a pro.

[ForceCommander]

As Erion says, I'm pretty much hooked. The transition from my Warlord demo to CAV was pretty smooth, I believe we did skip a few things but I got to use armor, infantry and CAVs and also see aircraft in action.

 

I really didn't understand the Templar Bond of Brotherhood ability until I saw it in action, those extra cards really let Erion dictate the course of the game.

 

I really enjoyed the system and scale, it's nice to be able to play a combined arms game in a reasonable amount of time. (My previous large scale game of choice was Titan Legions, which I loved but took WAAAAAAAAAY to long)

 

Bring on the starter set!

[Erion]

Fire Support Teams:

 

I've been thinking about an alternate way to handle FIST assets, and wanted to present it here now that I've got some pretty solid ideas.

 

It's really an evil-lution of the way that it's currently handled, but allows for more flexibility in the actual usage of the assets purchased.

 

As it stands now, a model has FIST/X and is able to purchase X allocation points worth of assets to be used specifically by that model. It makes some sense, and was a natural extension of the way that spells were purchased and used by mages in Warlord. However, military organizations don't work that way. They don't look at a specific platoon leader and say "You have this one Airstrike available to you, and only you. If you don't get a chance to use it, well, that's just too bad." Military organizations also don't say "Oops. First Squad just bought it, I guess we can pack this artillery up and go home."

 

I think a better way to handle this would be to say that all strike assets purchase go into a task force pool, and any model with FIST has the authority to call down any assets of a level equal to or less than its FIST rating. This would reflect that a model has a certain level of authority to call for strikes, but that more specialized models with better training or more access to command and control have higher authority to call for strikes.

 

Thus, the average rifle team could still only call Allocation 1 strikes, but if they were in a good position to do so could coordinate such assests bought by any models in the Task Force. Meanwhile, Models such as Fire Support Teams would still be needed to coordinate higher allocation strikes.

 

So, what do you think?

[Spartan6]

I like it. I agree completely Erion.

 

One of the Common Tasks I as a mortarman had to perform was called "Talk an untrained observer through a fire mission". Even the newest private has a chance to get artillery or air if he has a radio. FO's are great guys to have around but they aren't a necessity by any stretch of the imagination.

[Stubbdog]

I like the idea overall, as I have definitely experienced a coupld of demo games where my infantry got wiped before the had a chance to use their FIST calls and this would have helped.

 

But, I wonder how hard it would be to keep track of (arguments related to how many total points you have left, how many you've used, etc..)

 

I guess it wouldnt be any more difficut to keep track of than keeping track of the points individually already.

 

Question: Are you only talking about FIST call for strike type assets? Or would we also have to discuss this related to engineering assets or other non "strike" type assets?

[Erion]

I really see the engineers carrying their gadgets with them as opposed to the strike assets which are mostly off-board.

 

You'd still purchase strike assets the same way. Four Rifle teams would only be able to purchase a total of four Allocation one assets. They couldn't combine the allocation together to purchase something that costs more than one allocation point, because then none of them would be able to use it.

 

However, if three of those four rifle teams got wiped out, the fourth, if kept alive long enough, would be able to use all four of the allocation 1 strikes purchased.

[papabees]

I see where your going. I like it. Do you think the added versatility should increase the point cost?