Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Akela

Next Beta push update

Recommended Posts

I'm guessing the MAs will also get Specail Attributtes that will affect only them. Much like we already have for the IA (barrage, FRS, etc...). I wouldn't be a bit surprised if burst isn't reworked to effect the MAs. I like it. It gives more reasons to have Missles other then just as extra shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there will be SA's for Missles, SA's for InF, and SA's for DF, as well as General SA's for the unit itself.

 

Matt has mandated a change to the Data card to make it easier for you to tell the diffrence as well.

 

Mad Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the change has a few basic ramifications:

 

1.) You could Fire your MIssiles AND Repair.

 

2.) They would not count as attacks against a Run and Gun.

 

3.) You could fire Missiles and make an Indirect attack.

 

Now, All of these could be changed with simple rules additions, and very well may be, but these are the only things I could see as reasons for a change. I like 1 & 2, but not really 3. I guess I would say if the CAV had a Wizzo, making both a missile attack and an Indirect attack would be plausible.

 

I'llplay with this a bit more, but I see some real positives with this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure about both, a MA attack and an IF attack. Last I knew you could do either an IA or a DA in a single turn and MA is a type of Direct Attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but now it's being defined as a Missile Attack instead of a direct attack, so it may indeed be possible to do them both.

 

We'll just have to wait and see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Missiles are Direct Fire. The game term "Salvo" will be reserved for Indirect Fire Missiles. So you have Direct Attacks and Missiles and Indirect Attacks and Salvos.)

I think Missle attacks are still direct fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they're not activated as part of a ranged attack action. I'm not arguing, just taking a 'wait and see' approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design Philosophy Question,

 

As with most things, Reaper designs games with the players of those games in mind. Every once in a while, we want feedback on a very specific issue.

 

One of the big things we wanted to keep and maintain was a definitive battlefield role for the various Models. With the change to Salvo/#MA one thing became much clearer for the "pure missile boat CAVs" and that was Rate of Fire (stand still, pop 2 launch missile attacks per round). They became excellent support CAVs.

 

However, what sprang up was a debate on their "definitive" role and the "rock-paper-scissors" design philosophy.

 

It can be distilled down to two basic "camps," both could easily go either way in terms of how things work "over here" at Reaper. There's no "raging debate" or whatever. So, that's why we want you guys to sound off.

 

Camp 1) In exchange for the far increased Rate of Fire, a "support fire" CAV will lose Defensive Fire, relegating it to a clear secondary role on the battlefield. General Model types would now fall under "Frontline Superiority" "Secondary Superiority" "Hybrid Superiority/Support" "Pure Support." The game mechanic generally falls to "Frontline Superiority" can Run-and-Gun with no penalties, "Pure Support" have high rate of fire but no defensive fire at the extremes. "Secondary Superiority" would be CAVs that don't Run-and-Gun as well as the Frontliners and fall to the Move-Shoot, Shoot-Move for normal combat. "Hybrids" would not have quite as many missile shots but would also have some superiority capabilities (a la Defensive Fire). This keeps the points calculation "low" for Missile Attacks.

 

Camp 2) Defensive Fire is a good interactivity mechanic (i.e. it's no fun to be shot at and not be able to do anything about it, even if it is a support CAV) and should be present in even the Support Models. Additionally, it violates "established" fluff that certain CAVs/Vehicles can now no longer perform Defensive Fire when in the previous edition they could. Adjust for the higher rate of fire with a higher points calculation and allow them to retain Defensive Fire. We lose the distinction between "Hybrid" and "Pure" Support Models but retain all of the before mentioned points, which are more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to say I very easily fall into camp 2. Give the models who get the high ROF a higher points cost and let them have defensive fire.

 

The game, IMNSHO, would lose a lot if you could attack a model with no risk of having a critical ruin your day when he returns fire. Every attack has to retain some risk of retaliation or you'll run into certain models being early game high priority targets all the time because they're easy to kill without risking your own high-cost models. Then you ultimately have those easy-to-kill models seeing a lot less use because they always die early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrrgh, stupid connection time-out ate my post!! :grr:

 

Short version of what I was going to post. I don't really see a hybrid support class as it is anyway. Either it can kill on its own (or with minimal help) or it helps others kill (or kills in packs). Where this will be effective I think is when a missile boat CAV is paired with Tanks or FVs that only have a single IA. The CAV can still engage a target in LOS while the platoon as a whole engages a higher priority target (if not the LOS target). I'm going to say I'm in camp 2, allow the defensive fire and raise the points if for two reasons 1) the desire to defend oneself is innate to humanity and I'm assuming the other races of the Galaxy, 2) continuation of interactivity and established mechanics that don't appear to be broken.

 

Since we're talking about camps, I've got graham crackers, anyone have chocolate and marshmallows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well something to keep in mind the among of CAV's that will fall into the no defensive fire category is rather small and are usually the CAV's sitting at the back of the board not doing much direct fire anyway. This will mean that you will need to protect them a touch more as they will have limited ability to defend themselves.

 

I would also like to point out that you guys should have already been playing with a handful of units that had no way to conduct defensive fire.

 

Mad Pat

 

oh ya and crunch, ever sense that freeze at reaper and us trying to use a crucible to make smores they don't allow us near marshmallows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance, I am definitely in Camp 2, but that may be in large part due to my obscene luck with defensive fire.

 

I do like the idea of 'pure' support CAVs, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Maybe a way to resolve it would be to add an SA that disallows defensive fire.The SA would be a negative point cost modifier; you could have 'support' CAVs that are very effective in their role but aren't suited for the front lines and also 'hybrid-support' CAVs that are more versatile but more expensive. (i.e. the support CAVs would get the SA, hybrids would not)

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To ensure that people are actually thinking about this rather than gut-reactioning this we're going to reply to a couple points in "devil's advocate" mode.

 

would lose a lot if you could attack a model with no risk of having a critical ruin your day when he returns fire. Every attack has to retain some risk of retaliation

 

Let's not forget that the concept of "Defensive Actions" were introduced to most CAV players, by CAV. In most other games that lack defensive actions, people still play/fight and carry on tactics/strategies without the ability to instantly return a defensive attack. "Risk of retaliation" does not have to be immediate to be present.

 

or you'll run into certain models being early game high priority targets

 

That happens anyway.

 

all the time because they're easy to kill without risking your own high-cost models. Then you ultimately have those easy-to-kill models seeing a lot less use because they always die early on.

 

That's a supposition. Actual play may very well prove to be different, as it has been here.

 

I do like the idea of 'pure' support CAVs, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Not just support CAVs, support Models.

 

For example, currently the only Models that would lose Defensive Fire with Camp 1 in say, the Rach list (just to pick one at random) would be the following

 

Conqueror (AOE/4, Barrage, Chain Fire, Counter Battery, FRS)

Barbarian (Blaster, Dorsal Gun/1 actually has no DefFire now in the current build)

Vizier (AOE/3, Burst/2, FRS)

Badger (AP Gear, Independent, Soft, Transport/2)

Brigand (AOE/3, Counter Battery, FRS, Recon, Soft)

Brute (AP Gear, Independent, Light Scout, Gunport, Soft, Transport/1, Flamer/1)

 

Notice in every case, they are clearly not front line Models. In most cases, they are "sit in the back and shoot" Models as Patrick observed - except for the Transports which are also support type Models for the Infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camp 2 for me

 

we played a game the other night and forgot all about defensive fire until about turn 4......it was nasty...being able to "walk through" models without retaliation is nasty.....It was we had to put back 3 models when we realized we had forgotten. once the mechanics were corrected the game went better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...