CAV 2 Closed Beta v1.1

[Stubbdog]

Although I have not had a chance to playtest with the faction SAs, I will agree with Chrome that his opinion was also the first that came in my head when I read them.

 

Any SA that requires the expenditure of points to take advantage of, puts it at a disadvantage to those that don't.

 

The first thoughts, I had about the Ritterlich SA was that it would be very rarely used because of the equality of points in a game. Things being equal, it really isnt going to matter if I can squish more into each platoon. If anything, it might hurt me as I would be getting less initiative cards (as Chrome also noted how good that was for the Templars).

 

The idea that the Terrans can have FIST 1 across the board is nice, but since they have to spend less points on their actual unit choice to be able to take advantage of it, while the Malvies automatically get that 2 point swing for free... or the Rach get to heal better for free..

 

I just feel that any SA that requires that you have to "work" them into your force and spend points to get, is not really a balanced SA.

[Chrome]

Here's more for Matt to check when he gets back from GAMA!

 

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?

 

Soft target killers were always a waste of points in CAV 1, I'd hate for them to be even less useful in CAV 2.

[Erion]

For the Faction SA's that allow the inclusion of extra platoons/extra models in platoons, those doctrines could allow those models types to be fielded at reduced cost. Thus tanks in an all-Ritterlich force would be less expensive to field, as would gunships in an all-terran force.

 

It would help to offset the extra abilities that would otherwise cost points to be included in model costs.

 

Just a thought -- I have no idea how to actually execute this in practice. but it seems like it could fit.

 

 

As for Soft -- Infantry platoons are a whole lot bigger now, but I was concerned that most of the gunships were missing soft as well. I think I even said something about it a page or two back.

[papabees]

For the Faction SA's that allow the inclusion of extra platoons/extra models in platoons, those doctrines could allow those models types to be fielded at reduced cost.

You could also allow those extra units to be replacement units i.e. field 3 CAVs and a Tank for a armor platoon. Field a Tank in a light armor platoon. etc. etc. Added flexibility.

[Erion]

I think we all missed it because it's an unreleased model, but there are no stats in the latest datacards release for the Borsig-Spline Scarab Tank.

[Mad Pat]

Dam you caught me...ya We missed it with that release.

 

Mad Pat

[Jeremy]

In the cover fire Sit Mods (page 29) should you add the penalty for firing at a target thats outside of the first range bracket? Its not listed but it seems to me that it should.

 

Unless, of course that I missed it.

[Erion]

It's not there, but I didn't think It needed to be. You aren't actually trying to hit anything, after all...

[Stubbdog]

See, I go back and forth on this one too.

 

No you arent trying necessarily to hit a particular target. But as it is currently worded, you dont have to have LOS (except for the initiator), you dont have to have a range, and you don't have any penalties to achieve it from anywhere on the board. The target can be on the other side of a mountain and as long as the initiator has LOS, the rest of the platoon can still make an unmodified roll for it.

 

I just havent had the ability to play test it a lot yet to try and offer any suggestions on improving it.

[Joel47]

Some questions and comments from my latest playtest session. I did a quick re-scan of the nine pages of comments, but still offer my apologies if these have been answered. Could we create a FAQ thread, with the first post constantly edited with Q&A's?

 

1. We don't think criticals should give extra damage unless the margin of success on the crit roll is greater than zero. If you need an 11 to hit, why should any "lucky" (10) hit do two points of damage?

 

2. The data cards have movement class: Walker, but the movement chart shows that movement column as "CAV."

 

3. Leaving close combat should have some kind of bonus for the size of the unit. A Rhino should be able to walk away from Shredder infantry.

 

4. A Rally action gets rid of Shaken, but it doesn't say it gets rid of Supressed. Does it?

 

5. On p. 33, in section 3 d on ranged attacks, the lack of a qualifier implies that crits can occur at any range with indirect fire.

 

6. Airborne -- I don't see Attack or Heavy Gunship Transport listed anywhere in the rules. We assumed that was a transport of movement type Air.

 

7. Sniper -- Do you mean, "if the Model inflicts damage"?

 

8. Lose "optionally" for destroying a Thumper -- make it part of the default ruleset.

 

9. We assumed Barrage does not affect the Drift roll. Is that correct?

 

10. Drift should be increased 1-2" per range increment outside the first. It seemed odd that drift was just d6 inches regardless of range.

 

11. Recommend a bigger board. Saying the default board size is 4'x4' to 4'x6' will have people playing on that size board. We think 4'x6' is a minimum, and 6'x8' optimal, or else Stealth is almost useless. If you want to make the game fit on a smaller table, lop another four to eight inches off ranges and cut the Scan to Fire range in half (especially for infantry). We played on a 4'x8' table and found ranges to be too long. (I used to play CAV1 with terrain set up like badlands to block LoS, and I'd rather not return to that.)

 

12. Air movement isn't fast enough -- add at least 50%, at least to transports. On a regular size board, most everything is blown up before infantry can be dropped off.

 

13. Hunter and Shredder (especially the former) are underpriced. The way the odds work out, they add 33-50% to the chance to hit -- if you needed a 9 without, you now need a 7, which doubles your chance from 20% to 40%.

 

14. While we played Adonese vs Rach, we feel the Special Abilities for Ritterlich and (especially) Terrans to be underpowered compared to the rest. Templar is borderline.

 

I ran this one in public, and got favorable comments from onlookers. It looks like the added complexity is a turn-on to many.

[Erion]

1. Because it was a lucky shot.

 

2. Good Catch. Consistency is important.

 

3. Perhaps a Bonus to the check equal to the size class of the model. Nice and Simple.

 

4. Yes.

 

5. Revision

 

6. You assumed correctly. The wording on Air APC's /Gunship AT's has been in transition.

 

7. We've been playing it that the target actually has to be damaged for the discipline checks to be made.

 

9. We've been playing that it doesn't It's an RAV roll mod, not a drift roll mod.

 

10. I always thought drift shoud be 1d6"/range band.

 

11. We find 4x6 to work well, and 4x4 to be great for fast demos.

[Joel47]

1.  Because it was a lucky shot.

Yes, but why should you do extra damage when you hit if you can only barely hit by luck?

 

10.  I always thought drift shoud be 1d6"/range band.

That would work just fine.

 

11.  We find 4x6 to work well, and 4x4 to be great for fast demos.

Maybe for fast demos, but I certainly wouldn't list 4x4 as acceptable in the rulebook unless a qualifer is added that smaller tables are only suitable for demos, sacrificing tactical flexibility (and screwing with the point system) for speed of play. I don't want to see the same problem that cropped up with the first printing of AoG's Babylon 5 Wars, where the Minbari were massively overpointed. It turned out the play area the company used for playtesting was twice the size of the map that shipped with the box set. If the CAV authors want the game to work on a 4x4 to 4x6, ranges (especially EM effects) need to be reduced now before playtesting goes much farther (or they need to make sure their point system makes for minimal cost differences between a range 28 weapon and a range 36 weapon, for example, and makes stealth cheap).

[Stubbdog]

11.  We find 4x6 to work well, and 4x4 to be great for fast demos.

Maybe for fast demos, but I certainly wouldn't list 4x4 as acceptable in the rulebook unless a qualifer is added that smaller tables are only suitable for demos, sacrificing tactical flexibility (and screwing with the point system) for speed of play. I don't want to see the same problem that cropped up with the first printing of AoG's Babylon 5 Wars, where the Minbari were massively overpointed. It turned out the play area the company used for playtesting was twice the size of the map that shipped with the box set. If the CAV authors want the game to work on a 4x4 to 4x6, ranges (especially EM effects) need to be reduced now before playtesting goes much farther (or they need to make sure their point system makes for minimal cost differences between a range 28 weapon and a range 36 weapon, for example, and makes stealth cheap).

This is a concept I have tried to bring up a few times thru my discussions of the SA Scan to Fire.

 

With Scan to fire on a 4x4 or even 4x6 table, every unit on the board with Indirect fire will be able to lob a shot at the other side with no penalty because they will be "in range" after the scan.

 

I saw that they did change the weapons ranges to a minor degree after I brought this subject up. But, I think that it is still a problem. I think that something needs to be done such that the extended range bands get smaller and smaller as they go out. That way someone at the other end of a 6 or 8 foot table is not still in the 2nd range band.

[Erion]

Or, conversely, people will realize that lobbing one shot across the board with no chance of a critical and no hunter/shredder/PBG ability is a whole lot less effective than getting close enough to get three shots that can achieve a critical and make use of direct fire SA's.

[Mad Pat]

I've seen games played on both 4*4 and 4*8 here in the shop, and the only difference is the 4*4 get mixed up in to hair balls allot quicker.

 

both methods of play are legit and should not be ruled out, modern warfare would much rather sit back and lob rounds on the enemy long before they send in the squishes and turtles.

 

what i've seen is discussions about opposing styles of play not breaks in how the game is played. Some folks like in close knife fights in a dark room, others like to play tennis with arty rounds.

 

Mad Pat