Are we looking at it wrong?

[Crazy8]

I can see yer point on takin' a direct hit from a artillery shot but what if yer just in the AoE with cover in between you and the impact point?

Well in that case you'd reduce the damage you take from shrapnel but you still have concussive damage. For the sake of playability I don't think we want to get into that.

Good Lord! Imagine trying to write comprehensive rules for concussion damage.

 

Again Spartan brings up a good point about deployment. Since you don't HAVE to be near your forces in CAV you shouldn't be deploying in anything remotely resembling a closed formation. Especially if you have the standard 4' x 8' playing surface with a 1' x 4' deployment area. NOTHING should be closer then 6" with any other unit... and that may be low balling it.

[mughzee]

First, we're talking game mechanics in saying that strikes should have range modifier...

 

Now we're saying well how so? (fluff wise)

 

Here's the dilly. You are looking at a 4X6 board with felt on it with some cardboard boxes we call buildings, and some foam we call rock and there are some trees there too maybe....Stop doing that and start looking at it as ground with rolls, holes and craters, forests with over hangs, cregs, dips, cliffs with over hangs. whatever you like... infantry will find a place to hide....will it save them, maybe, maybe not, that in effect is what the modifiers are there for to take terrain features in consideration. a Satellite beam from space using pin point accuracy still isn't pin point...you're aiming for an object that at most is a 3x5 meter area...I say use modifiers and let the dice gods handle the rest.

 

 

 

If we start taking things too litteral then we have to question....how the hek does a Tank participate in a Close combat?

 

 

Looking at the recent run downs...and playing a game last night....strikes really are not game breakers...I'm new to all of this so I'm going back and forth, but the more i'm doing it i'm finding an equalibrium and anything that is too much.....is easily rectified.....I don't deploy in bunches, I utilize cover, we're using the scaning for target rules for the strikes...and in the end the only thing I would throw out there is to increase the point, but not even by much....

 

Spartan says it well in his recent post....wasting all you strike on T1 is just a waste of points and anyone utilizing that tactic becomes crippled for the rest of the game. And that is their peragative.

[von Richtor]

.... I don't like the idea of Von Ricthtor's staggered deployment. It might make for a interesrting special scenario rule, but not for basic mechanics.

Well, we're not talking about RAP or impressionist art here, do you have any particular reason(s)?

[Spartan6]

.... I don't like the idea of Von Ricthtor's staggered deployment. It might make for a interesrting special scenario rule, but not for basic mechanics.

Well, we're not talking about RAP or impressionist art here, do you have any particular reason(s)?

Yeah, why? I thought it was kinda cool. VR, have you played it out?

[Chrome]

We've actually played that way in most of our free-for-all games. If you're playing in smaller games (2k or less) it screws the first guy to draw an init card. He moves his first platoon onto the map and then has nothing to do but sit there. So the 2nd guy takes his turn and of course he's only got one platoon to target, so he shoots and does some damage. So then the 3rd guy goes and at this point player #1's platoon is slightly shot up, so he attacks him as well and does some more damage. If there's a 4 or more players, the same can happen again and again, until player #1's lost his entire platoon without getting to do anything other than move onto the table.

 

Now naturally that isn't going to happen every single game, but that's absolutely what will happen for the first two activations. The guy who has to go first never, ever gets to attack, which should never happen.

 

how the hek does a Tank participate in a Close combat?

Close Combat is not hand to hand combat. Its ranged combat at such minimum ranges that the normal rules can't be used. A modern day tank's close combat weapons would be the machine guns it has mounted, while its ranged weapon would be its cannon.

[Saint of Sinners]

.... I don't like the idea of Von Ricthtor's staggered deployment. It might make for a interesrting special scenario rule, but not for basic mechanics.

Well, we're not talking about RAP or impressionist art here, do you have any particular reason(s)?

For starters read Chrome's post on the subject.

 

But I think the agruement on the subject will be moot, because I seriousily doubt Reaper will go for since it would be a big departure from the core mechanics of the RAGE system (not just CAV).

[von Richtor]

The Deployment rule I propose is as follows:

 

Every player may begin the game with none, any, or all of their Platoons in the deployment area. They must supply, to the initiative deck one card for each Platoon that began the turn on the board plus one for each Platoon held in reserve to be brought on to the board this turn. When a player’s card is drawn from the initiative deck he may either conduct a turn normally for any Platoon which began the turn on the board OR bring any off board Platoon to the deployment area.

 

If you share Chrome’s concern (and in an FFA game, it’s certainly viable), then by all means, begin the game with two or three Platoons on the board. Bear in mind also that the draw of the initiative cards can ruin anybody’s day regardless of anything decided here. If, on turn one, all of your initiative cards are drawn before any of mine are, I’m pretty much done regardless of how we deployed. This rule does nothing to increase that likelihood however.

 

Yes, Saint, this is a diversion from the current system but it could be used “R.A.G.E. wide” as it will work for Warlord too I think. I admit, I can see no reason for a Warlord player to use any but the “everything on first turn” option but that’s fine. In any case, I doubt that Reaper is afraid to deviate from the “one system fits all” model a bit. After all, didn’t this discussion begin as a result of first turn strike problems? Is that a big problem in Warlord too or are strikes pretty much a CAV thing exclusively?

 

Finally, no Spartan, I haven’t yet tried this rule with CAV. I sure wish someone would though (preferably someone who finds first turn strikes problematic).

[Chrome]

You won't find anything in Warlord that comes close to Strikes. Everything in Warlord has ranges, which are all short enought to ensure no need for units starting off board. In fact, doing that would just slow Warlord down as you'd be spending more time getting your guy's on the table instead of moving them forward and into battle.

 

CAV's strikes are unique in the fact that they have no range limitations and that the ill-advised 1'x2' deployment zone makes for shooting fish in a bucket. While I think that your suggestion makes for an excellent scenario rule, I don't think Reaper will implement it as a standard rule, simply for the fact that the first act of every CAV game ever has been to deploy your units on the tabletop and revealing what you have.

 

CAV's never really been about "Surprise! My Rhino was hiding behind that bush!", since recon units, satellite surveillence, seismic readings and whatever else they have would have detected your Rhino (or infantry or whatever) long before you closed to combat distances. The only things in CAV 1 that you were allowed to hide from your opponents were things that weren't readibly detectible, like crew upgrades, movement upgrades, modified electronics, stuff like that.

[Crazy8]

So, it sounds like officially changing the size of the deployment area may be a step in the right direction for strikes...

Also increasing the price a reasonable amount...

 

See, we're making progress.

[efkelley]

"Surprise! My Rhino was hiding behind that bush!"

You realize, of course, that simply MUST go in the next book.

[Chrome]

 

Here Eric, go here and click on the last picture on the page. Now that's some good use of cover by a Rhino!

[Sergeant_Crunch]

How to set yourself up to receive an airstrike

[mughzee]

is he using the 2x1 deployment rules? if so, you can definaetely see that the DZ needs increase.

[Trilan]

You know... I kind of like the idea of not having a deployment zone at all and just a deployment edge, with the models coming on-board the first time the card comes up. The solution of it screwing the first player is to simply have recon units effect the first turns card pulls instead of just the chosing of the deployment area (esp since individual units wouldn't be getting deployed there anymore), that way the penalty goes to the side that has the worst battlefield intel.

 

Scout units could start on the field but be considered to be camo'ed automatically.

 

I think this is the most elegent solution to the problem since it fixes first strike situations without hampering strikes or putting special case rules in place. Heck it even leaves an interesting possibility in place where you could pass on moving a unit when it's card comes up so that reinforcements arrive later in the game. As Crazy 8 (I think) said, that way you keep you opponent guessing as to what they are fighting.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

Unless you are playing some kind of superhuge points limit game or you are fielding nothing but rifle platoons or on a really small table, expanding the DZ to the width of the table should take care of a lot of problems by allowing for models to be properly spead out. I don't think it is necessary to have a "delayed deployment," although it would make for a spiffy scenario rule.