Are we looking at it wrong?

[mughzee]

delayed deployment definately sounds like a scenerio. What about hidden set up.........Now, I am by no means attempting to pull thinkgs from other systems, but some aspects are pretty much across the board(no pun intended) when it comes to battles

 

Cloaking? Has anyone thought of this in game terms.....does it exist in CAV....not Stealth, but cloaking.

 

Unit Cloaked can't do anything for the turn except cloak, the turn it uncloaks it can only do a non-combat action...if at all. I don't know..

[Sergeant_Crunch]

I think that goes away from what I perceive to be the believe in the game that detection technologies are on par with "anti-detection" technologies, and that at the ranges represented in a typical game that at least the general location (though not necessarily range/elevation and so forth) is always available.

[von Richtor]

I think we’re all agreed that either we need a special CAV deployment rule or a new, R.A.G.E. wide deployment rule. I think the latter is preferable. I also still think that either the wider deployment area and/or “staggered deployment” are the way to go here. My only real problem with the former is that I have never played Warlord and so have no idea what the ramifications of the widened deployment area might be to that game.

 

In further defense of the “staggered deployment” rule, I would just say that hidden models are not a necessary part of the rule. I just thought it might be kinda neat and THAT might make a good scenario.

[Chrome]

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

If you're refering to the picture that Capt. Crunch linked to, it's 5 years old. The deployment zone was anywhere w/in 6" of your own table edge.

 

Cloaking? Has anyone thought of this in game terms.....does it exist in CAV....not Stealth, but cloaking.

Nope, no cloaking in CAV. Optional rules for Hidden Deployment are on page 33 of the beat rules.

 

I think we’re all agreed that either we need a special CAV deployment rule or a new, R.A.G.E. wide deployment rule. I think the latter is preferable.

RAGE is just a template for different game systems. As such, RAGE-wide rulings are something that should be avoided, especially for things such as deployment zones that will definately differ from game to game based on the system's level of technology and scale.

[mughzee]

Thanks for the replies...they put the game in better perspective.

 

 

 

R.A.G.E. system is for the rules of the game....the mechanics right? CAV is not Warlord so why can't it have its own ruling on deployment. I don't think that would do anything. CAV need swider Deployment. I played two games before I found that my deployment was wrong. We pick sides and deploy 8" out the the table wide...I mean it only makes sense when you have platoon cohesion at 2' and 5'.

[Chrome]

Always glad to help!

 

R.A.G.E. system is for the rules of the game....the mechanics right?

Correct. RAGE games will always have several key points in common and lots of similar concepts: the initiative deck, AoE, Discipline and Shaken, Special Abilites, data cards and of course the main building block of it all, the 2 Action activation utilizing Combat and Non-Combat Actions. That one's definatly in, b/c I tried talking Matt into a 3 Action system for CAV (Non-Combat Action, Pilot Action and Wizzo Action) and that went over like a lead baloon!

 

And just so no one is confused, my position is that CAV definately should have different deployment zones than Warlord. The point I was trying to make in my previous point was that requring every RAGE game to have the exact same deployment zone would be a huge mistake, as show by the 12"x24" one listed in the example scenarios. (btw, I bet those two scenarios are legacy text from the Warlord beta rules, but I could be wrong)

 

CAV 1's deployment zones were perfect as they were and should be kept intact. They were pretty much what you had been playing: 6"-12" in from your side of the table, stretching the whole width of your side.

[Spartan6]

So, if everyone just deployed within 12" of their own table edge would that fix the strike problems?

[Chrome]

On an 8' long table, I think 12" would be fine. Anything shorter than that probably needs to be 6" though, otherwise you've got models on a 6' table starting out only 48" away from each other.

[Spartan6]

But you can still spread out along the edge width-wise so yeah, on a 6' table 6" could work.

[Saint of Sinners]

A 4' x 1' deployment zone as default DZ would work.

 

I take it that both Spartan and Chrome have been doing so from the begining. In which case have either of you (or anyone else that has been doing so) had any problems with the Deployment strikes crippling any forces?

 

Now as I've stated earlier, I've been allowing strikes receive Range Combat Modifiers. In doing so I find that they were fine (except Strife run should be 50pts instead of 25). Anybody else been using them this way? Did they find them unbalanced or overpowering? ANd when I refer to Range modifiers I refer to everything listed on the reference sheet under Range Combat Modifier which includes Deflect SA.

[mughzee]

the only ranged modifiers we've used for strikes where cover (woods) and stealth. emp is the only strike we use no modifiers for. we've haven't used the warlord DZ cause i don't play it. I've used the 8" from your table side.

 

i really don't think it'll matter in the big picture whether or not you use 6", 8, 10, or 12" from your side as long as it's table width.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

Where deployment depth would make a difference would be if you're deploying on the long or short edge of the table. I have a 4x8 table, when I play WH40k I deploy along the 8' side (I play IG and it takes forever to get anywhere), when I'm stomping things with CAVs I deploy along the 4' edge becuase of the effectively unlimited ranges.

 

Deploying on the long edge of the table 12" in would leave me only two feet from the other deployment, that could really place a person at a disadvantage if the deployment draws aren't evenly distributed.

[Spartan6]

"Oy! Doctor, it hurts when I do like this!"

 

"Then don't do like that."

 

 

[mughzee]

I think at that point then the players or the rules can dictate that you deploy on edge that gives you the most ddistance from your opponent. We've done in on a 4x6. we deployed on the long side. but because we used the whole 6' for deployment we weren't disadvantagine each other in the slightest....we still have cavs and infantry taht were almost 6' from each other. and have cover and terrain helps emensily too. granted IA at 2' isn't the nicest, but once you know what is going on and units have what you'll be able to deploy accordingly I think.

[Trilan]

The ranges are exactly why I like the delayed deployment idea over extending the deployment zone. Even at the current size on a 4x4 or 4x6 table it doesn't feel like there is much in the way of tactics, since unless the table is jam packed with scenery your going to be mixing it up on round 1. Expanding the deployment zone won't do anything to help with that problem, but dropping in a unit at a time would, while killing the first strike problem as well.

 

For the most part the new rules have the feel of playing something like Unreal Tournament rather than Rainbow Six (pardon the comparison). The more I have played of the new version, the more it starts to feel... flat I guess. Don't get me wrong, I like the addition of the engineering and strike assets and all, and simplifing the rules is great. But... I never got tired of play the original CAV, whereas with the new rules I've already pretty much burned out already. I don't think there is really that much of a loss from the original in terms of loss of tactics, but the lack is more noticable now, because in the original you had so much more to do on the defending side with the contested combat rolls. Now all you can do look for cover to run and gun units out of, or for convienient clusters of targets to strike (left out defensive strikes since theres no real change there)...