Are we looking at it wrong?

[von Richtor]

You know, when I suggested a staggered deployment and nobody commented at all, I figured that my understanding of the problem was way off and everyone was just being polite. I now realize that my understanding of the problem is accurate and I'd like to revisit it if I could. It seems as viable a suggestion as any as far as alleviating the problem of first turn strikes and more so when game mechanics are considered. It requires no special, "first turn only", rule. Candidly, it would add a new dimension to the game as there would no longer be any reason to actually show my opponent all the toys I brought to play with on turn one. It leaves him to guess, for the first couple of turns at least, just what he may be facing. So, bluntly, I ask, what's wrong with a staggered deployment?

[Chrome]

Not quite sure what you mean by "staggered deployment" von Richtor. Is it something like this:

 

X              X               X                 X                               X

      X               X                                       X           X                X


X                                 X              X                  X                X

If that's what you mean, then yes, this is definately how you should be deploying your forces.

[Crazy8]

You guys aren't deploying your forces in parade formation are you!?

[papabees]

Not quite sure what you mean by "staggered deployment" von Richtor.

He means having your sections come onto the board at the flip of the initiative card rather than beginning the game on board.

[Crazy8]

Not quite sure what you mean by "staggered deployment" von Richtor.

He means having your sections come onto the board at the flip of the initiative card rather than beginning the game on board.

Uh-oh.... that's how I've always played. Keeps you and the other guy guessing about whats going to be on the battlefield...

[Ivarr]

did anyone else playtest that Terran force I described? I will be trying it again tomorrow....I will post more information then, but it was very very silly.

 

SOS ...its not that I dont like strikes ....they have a time and place....but I do not think that they have a place in a game like this......IF they are balanced, they are pointless, and if they are not...they are spoilers....as I described on the previous page of this thread...

 

And why should one broken part of the current beta rules keep players from being able to deploy in reasonable unit formations.......Are we always going to have to deploy with a tape in hand to ensure that our minis are at least 12" apart, and is that a violation of the premeasuring concept?

[Crazy8]

And why should one broken part of the current beta rules keep players from being able to deploy in reasonable unit formations.......Are we always going to have to deploy with a tape in hand to ensure that our minis are at least 12" apart, and is that a violation of the premeasuring concept?

Well, you could argue that a reasonable formation is any formation that allows each individual unit to cover and be covered by another unit as well as allowing maximum movement for each unit without breaking the interlocking fields of fire.

 

Given the ranges in CAV a formation fullfilling this criteria can be spread out over quite a distance. Which would negate much of the effects of deployment zone strikes.

[Saint of Sinners]

I'm interested in what you guys are using for deployment zones? Since the beta rules don't have any rules for it, you should all still be using the rules from the original rulebook, which means if you're playing on a standard 4'x8' or recommended 4'x6' table, you've got over 4' to spread your minis out across and at least 12" of depth to spread them out across. You should never have more than 2 models getting hit by an Artillary Strike or Strafing Run.

I've been using a 2'x1' deployment... which was from the "to the Death" scenario on pg 11 of the beta rules

 

[Saint of Sinners]

The only problem is that models using AOE strikes can still target a point on the ground and do so with no penalty.

...but wait there's more

 

Pay careful attention to text about stealth... shot at target that is stealthed recieves a -2 to hit penalty

 

WHat you say?

 

That's right Stealth acts like a mobile cover. Don't feel bad I forgot about it too until this morning

 

 

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Saint of Sinners]

you guys need to playtest the strike rules properly once or twice....try taking ANY 2000 pt force against a terran force like this:

 

650 pts worth of 25 pt strikes of your choice (26 of them)

10 fist capable troops

Whatever you would like to fill it out...perhaps a second unit of fist troops and a couple of tsesuki fighters?... or something with high armor that can mop up the remenants of the opposing force after its decimation at the hands of way to many strikes

 

On a 4'X8' board, requiring a scan makes almost no difference, unless you at minimum declare everything stealthed in the deployment zone, and as stated before, they can still legally declare the strikes on the ground near stealthed units....

 

In any case, even if the 25pt strikes you take are all cruise missiles, this is just a rediculously silly thing to have in a game... period. It will look like a game of missile command on the old atari 2600....not a miniatures game of any kind that I want to play.

First off... let me say that Strife run is under priced. It should at least be 50 pts to match Artillery Strike. For two reason it can damage just as many models as artillery plus there is worry about it miss its target and drifting.

 

Second item... currently the only infantry model able to call strikes higher then a first level is a Fire support Team... which is a specialist model... which means it has to be in a specialist platoon... and which as I was corrected earlier can only have the maxium of 4 (I got confused with the scout platoon).

 

So what does this mean? That mean only two strikes are under 25pts that can be used by models in a rifle platoon, Strife Run and Cruise Missle: EMP. Now the EMP missle acts like a hold spell, making a single model unable to perform any action for a single turn. Strife Run creates a 1/2" x 12" line of damage.

 

Third tidbit of info we already know... the Terran Faction ability grant all models in a Terran pure force FIST/1 any models that already have FIST/# SA recieve NO further benefit. In other words, a model with FIST/1 does not become a model with FIST/2.

 

On to yer playtest... I shall use 10 light mortar teams (as they are the cheapest infantry model at 36pts. So out of the 2000 pts. I'll be spending 1100 pts just so I can drop ten Strife runs a turn for three and half turns. Funny I could get four falcons w/ accurized for less and get up to 16 DAs with RAV +4 and still have change left over... but that's neither here nor there.

 

Now I'll have to use the remaining 900pts on a platoon that exists for the sole purpose of protecting my Rifle platoon. What kind of idiot would invest over half their points like that? All yer opponent would have to do is spread out his models and get alot of fast movers and yer toast.

[Crazy8]

(Playing Devils Advocate here... )

 

Unless you manage to let loose with all of those strafing runs while his units are still in the deployment zone. The amount of damage you could do would probably go a long way towards keeping your infantry force alive....

 

(I agree with you SoS, that would be a foolish way to spend your points.)

[Saint of Sinners]

(Playing Devils Advocate here... )

 

Unless you manage to let loose with all of those strafing runs while his units are still in the deployment zone. The amount of damage you could do would probably go a long way towards keeping your infantry force alive....

true

 

Which is why I've been so focused on first strikes while units are clostiered in their DZ.

 

Strikes or any AoE attacks are the most dangerous when yer units are clostiered together. But when yer able to get yer force out into the open, strikes are no more dangerous then yer standard Indrect attack.

[Crazy8]

So, with that said, a good way to cut down on first strike abuse may be:

 

Opening up the deployment zone. As it has been mentioned before the beta rules list a deployment zone as being 24" X 12". Open this up to 36" or 48" by 12" to allow a players force to be spread out as much as possible.

 

Having "staggered deployment" so not all of your forces start within plain view of the enemy. Each platoon is activated by an initiave card and then moves onto the board. (I think this would also make gameplay a bit more fun as you have no idea what forces your enemy if bringing to the table). This allows for things to not get to bunched up and forces your opponent to A) Save the strike he was going to call in on your Starhawk VI's and gamble that you'll field something better, which you won't. OR B) Strike those VI's only to have you field a couple of Thunderbirds on your next "deployment".

 

Forcing the model calling in the strike to have LOS and roll a successful Scan for Target before the strike can be called in. Coupled with the expanded deployment zone this should allow for some of your models to find decent enough cover to stay out of LOS. (Depending of course on how flat you like your boards, but where is the fun in fighting on a big grass field!? )

[Saint of Sinners]

If we look at page 11 of the beta rules, we'll find a li'l blurb that says "<3> Determine Deployment area ##insert text. When we come to an area like this we're suppose to refer to the Warlord rulebook (this was mentioned way back in the began of beta testing and that you would need access to a copy of it for the beta testing of CAV2). Now in the Warlord book its states that a 2'x1' is the standard default DZ size (pg. 56). It further states that the actual size may vary from scenario to scenario. With this in mind, increasing the DZ size is not a suitable solution due to the variance in of sizes need for various scenarioes.

 

Now changing deployment phase set will create other problem... First of all let's look at the correct way the Deployment phase is suppose to work:

 

Someone (doesn't matter who) draws the first card from the intiative deck. That player whose card is draw then gets to player a single platoon down on the His/hers DZ or if he has a Recon SA on one or more of his models they could instead chose bury their card at the bottom of the intiative deck instead of deploying his platoon and deploy it later. Also a Ritterlich player can force his opponent to bury their initiative card. This is repeated until all the models have been deployed. Next any models with the Scout SA recieve their free non-combat action. Once all this is complete you can began the game phase.

 

Now first off changing deployment phase will dramistically alter a base mechanic of the game system. WHich we should all know by now is not something Reaper is willing to do. Second, by changing the deployment phase you would need to alter several SAs as well as faction abilities. In other words, we'll get a bunch of ripple effects that would require adjustments through out the whole game.

 

As for LoS and Scan for Target... I could see LoS and SoT both being required for infantry, while everyone else only has to do SoT, since Inf. doesn't have super targeting computers with radars and whatnots strapped to their butt. Also that Inf has to be disembarked from an APC to call in strikes (I thought this was already the case). Although these still do not alone solve the issue of the crippling effect of First strike on the DZ. (warning gratuitious plug coming) Which is why I like my idea of the Deployment Zone Stealth.

 

Deployment Zone Stealth reduces the effectiveness of first strike yet at the same time still makes it possible. And yes it even covers Area effects attacks centered out side of the DZ due to stealth's ranged penalty modifier.

 

My name is the Saint of Sinners and I support the Deployment Zone Stealth Intiative!

[Crazy8]

Well how are you supposed to argue that!