Jump to content

Close Combat Resolution


MattyFoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I am rather new to CAV (and loving it, to boot). While I have picked up the rules quickly and find them to be mostly clear and consistent, I have run into a small snag with CC.

 

It is stated that combat continues until all attackers or the defender are destroyed. Does this mean that all the combat occurs within the attacker' activation? I.e. - by the end of the activation, one side lies in ruins and that there is no chance for other units from unactivated sections to intervene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

close combat starts when a model moves into B2B and attacks. Yes, you continue until destroyed and no other models can activate to intervene. This is one of the most disliked rules in CAV. Suggestions have been posted but there is no official ruling form Reaper. Mil-Net has test rules that address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, currently close combat works almost like a game within the game, since it is carried out to completion within one activation rather than across the regular time frame of the rest of the game.

 

There are definite pros and cons for this. It was intended to give infantry some real bite on the playing field. Some argue it gives too much, others say its just right. Only thing I will say is that the intention is definitely carried out against those that do not think or prepare themselves for it (i.e. adding avenger bonuses to help defend against them or focusing on transport ships before they get too close).

 

As with anything in this game, there are tactics and counter tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the dumbest rule set within the game...

 

It defies logic and definitely makes infantry too powerful on the Cav battlefield

Rach and Adon can be gross...

 

Also there is a rule that allows:

infantry to use a vehicles movement and then its own and then attack.

 

It was explained to me that people wanted to make infantry more potent, but that's just crazy..

Mil-net is really no better in thier vision than Reaper.. They just put more stuff out.

 

Especially when you wil notice that cavs have no rules for close combat.

That was explained by someone at mil-net (Chrome) theat Cavs are just shooty vehicles..That's total crap too. They may or may not be designed as such

but on the battlefield anything can and does happen.

 

Also in regards to infantry you can equip them with vehicle esque weapons so they have some ranged capabilities..

Meanwhile cavs and vehicles have next to no Close combat capabilities. Are you recognizing a theme here.

 

To totally top it off.. Transport vehicles have the highest armor values in the game. The game is not unplayable in its current form

but you get more tactics out of a bag of green army men than you do in the game.

 

The dimensions of the normal game board make infantry a very viable (And potent) force.

 

Infantry in whatever form are way over powered.. As they are presented no faction would ever produce cavs or vehicles.

As they are not cost effective on the battlefield and a drain of natural resourses that could go into making infantry more potent.

 

As it stands either the game is cav centric or it is not.. Currently it is not.

 

Also if you make a suggestion that makes sense you get someone to jump on you and say no that is not the way it is..

or that's what makes Cav Cav or some such nonsense...

 

Things that have to be fixed before Cav can even be considered a tactical game. (These are just the baby steps)

 

Infantry. You can see above..

Cav's have to be revalued. to reflect a close combat value and to make all cavs have a battlefield value

Then faction abilities have to be balanced.. and made useful..for all factions...

 

 

I am sure someone like Chrome will chime in here in a second.. but 8 months later.. there is no resolution...

and time is money... ....

 

I believe totally that this game will fail with out the above corrections.

 

BTW Mi;l-Net cannot make changes to the game mechanics or rules they cna only introduce new material..

So my poking at Mil-net is probalably not as deserved as it might seem. Believe me they realize the issues but cannot do anything

about it with thier current licence.

 

You have heard about fruit rotting on the vine. Welcome to CAV

 

Love the miniatures... Hate the rules.. I do mean HATE..

I am a Hater.... I am comfortable with that..

Because It is only minorly a tactical game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was explained by someone at mil-net (Chrome) theat Cavs are just shooty vehicles..That's total crap too. They may or may not be designed as such

but on the battlefield anything can and does happen.

 

*snip*

 

I am sure someone like Chrome will chime in here in a second..

Yes, this would be the place where I ask you not to put words in my mouth. I'm totally fine with you quoting me, just include links to where I said it, rather than paraphrasing what I say out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

close combat starts when a model moves into B2B and attacks. Yes, you continue until destroyed and no other models can activate to intervene. This is one of the most disliked rules in CAV. Suggestions have been posted but there is no official ruling form Reaper. Mil-Net has test rules that address it.

 

With the core rules as writen at present, if you want to win a tournament guaranteed, you play Rach with the No Mercy Doctrine (with Ritterlich Hunter's Edge Doctrine running a close second). There's no motivation to play any other faction if you're playing to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was explained by someone at mil-net (Chrome) theat Cavs are just shooty vehicles..That's total crap too. They may or may not be designed as such

but on the battlefield anything can and does happen.

 

*snip*

 

I am sure someone like Chrome will chime in here in a second..

Yes, this would be the place where I ask you not to put words in my mouth. I'm totally fine with you quoting me, just include links to where I said it, rather than paraphrasing what I say out of context.

 

 

This is the quote..(Your Quote) from this board.

From Sargeant Crunchs thread about Close Combat.

 

 

The way is forward.

 

 

Close Combat isn't designed for vehicles. Its almost exclusively the realm of Infantry, a mechanic that allows them to pose a significant threat against CAVs and other vehicles. If you let them get close enough.

 

As for your question about being in a CAV or Vehicle and in B2B with another model, the answer is you almost never want to engage in Close Combat. Vehicles, especially CAVs, are always better off shooting their weapons in a Ranged Attack.

 

To which I responded CC covers a multitude of sins.

 

 

I have alot more to say, but won't do it here. If you care to know How I feel. Please PM me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the core rules as writen at present, if you want to win a tournament guaranteed, you play Rach with the No Mercy Doctrine (with Ritterlich Hunter's Edge Doctrine running a close second). There's no motivation to play any other faction if you're playing to win.

I've yet to find a game that allowed players to pick and choose their game pieces (IE games not like chess or checkers were both sides are identical) where one or two certain armies or builds didn't rise up to the top for tournament play. Its inevitable. Whenever you design a game where the pieces have varying attributes and some have special abilities that others don't, there's going to be a few that have a better synergy together than the others do. By their limited size and special circumstances, tournaments generally lend themsleves towards a slanted landscape.

 

Open playing with your friends is an entirely different story though, and I don't understand why anyone would let one or two mechanics that they don't like stand in the way of an otherwise excellent - not to mention fun - gaming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the core rules as writen at present, if you want to win a tournament guaranteed, you play Rach with the No Mercy Doctrine (with Ritterlich Hunter's Edge Doctrine running a close second). There's no motivation to play any other faction if you're playing to win.

I've yet to find a game that allowed players to pick and choose their game pieces (IE games not like chess or checkers were both sides are identical) where one or two certain armies or builds didn't rise up to the top for tournament play. Its inevitable. Whenever you design a game where the pieces have varying attributes and some have special abilities that others don't, there's going to be a few that have a better synergy together than the others do. By their limited size and special circumstances, tournaments generally lend themsleves towards a slanted landscape.

 

Open playing with your friends is an entirely different story though, and I don't understand why anyone would let one or two mechanics that they don't like stand in the way of an otherwise excellent - not to mention fun - gaming experience.

 

You have just said it... CAV 2 is a poor game design.

I can name several.. Card games tend to do it by offering a multitude of options and methods to win. Magic, Guardians, VTeS, Rage

Other miniature games do it. Even if they have collectible in the rules.. DDM, SWM

Warlord seems to be a lot more balanced. You see all factions in tourny play.

privateer press with thier ugoigo and one trick ponies you see all factions represented.

Confrontation has a bunch of factions and while you see one or two consistantly winning it is not impossible to overcome

the tactics and make your army succeed.. if not win.

Even the evil empire of GW start out balanced and then as new armies are added gets way out of whack.

 

There is no reason Cav shouldn't suceed. with the criteria you have set for yourself.

Fast play

Limited use of tokens.

Big stompy robots.

Tactical.

Small playfield

Similar ruleset to Warlord.

Multiple balanced factions.

 

It is even mostly done.

The most infuriating part?

The see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil, that plagues the game

Reaper is a miniatures company.. not a game company.. They have finite resources to expend on game rules.

They have gotten Warlord scared away.. and are busy churning out the new miniatures for the game. People are happy

The new line RotD is due out. People are working on the rules and miniatures. People are excited.

The Cav line. Reaper has turned over the fluffy stuff to Mil-net who has been doing a good job keeping the game afloat with thier releases. However there is nothing new on the horizon for Cav as far as rules. People are disappointed.

 

If no one plays the game dies. You just said I need to play one faction to win at tournements. So that means I have to spend extra money to compete on top of the money I already spent for the models I like. Cav 2 is a house of cards.. built on an unbalanced set of rules... I also see a strong wind coming....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't join in on the love fest going on.

 

I will just say that I answered the question that was asked.

 

I can understand some people's frustrations. I am not going to argue for or against any rules as they are, that has been done enough times.

 

The only thing I wil say is that, when someone asks a question and the response is a highly volatile eruption that is nearly impossible to keep from getting defensive and argument causing (no matter how valid the statements made within such response), then it only causes harm and increases the chances of the game having problems...

 

i.e. A new peson is interested in playing CAV, goes to the game company's website and asks "I tried out the game of CAV and I think like it enough to buy into it. But I want to verify something real quick..." and the response to his query is.. "DANGER WILL ROBINSON... DANGER...."

 

Now do you think:

 

A.) that the person who came here saying that they "LIKED" the game is gonna want to buy into it more now after that response (and hence raise sales and increase Reaper's numbers for showing there is a reason to continue on with it)...

 

or

 

B.) that person will say "what the @#$%#$ was that all about.. Why would I want to buy into that?" and hence not increase the sales and not help Reaper give any reason t continue on with it...

 

 

Valid points can be made without doing it in such a volatile way. And maybe in more appropriate threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the core rules as writen at present, if you want to win a tournament guaranteed, you play Rach with the No Mercy Doctrine (with Ritterlich Hunter's Edge Doctrine running a close second). There's no motivation to play any other faction if you're playing to win.

I've yet to find a game that allowed players to pick and choose their game pieces (IE games not like chess or checkers were both sides are identical) where one or two certain armies or builds didn't rise up to the top for tournament play. Its inevitable. Whenever you design a game where the pieces have varying attributes and some have special abilities that others don't, there's going to be a few that have a better synergy together than the others do. By their limited size and special circumstances, tournaments generally lend themsleves towards a slanted landscape.

 

Open playing with your friends is an entirely different story though, and I don't understand why anyone would let one or two mechanics that they don't like stand in the way of an otherwise excellent - not to mention fun - gaming experience.

 

Yeah, I really can't argue with that. It's kind of like Magic where everyone brings land destruction decks to tournaments. I've tried out most of the factions (I think Malvernis is the only one I haven't got round to yet) and have had a lot of fun.

 

I am fully confident that your and Mil-Net's hard work will remedy any perceived shortcomings in the rules (mine included).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the core rules as writen at present, if you want to win a tournament guaranteed, you play Rach with the No Mercy Doctrine (with Ritterlich Hunter's Edge Doctrine running a close second). There's no motivation to play any other faction if you're playing to win.

I've yet to find a game that allowed players to pick and choose their game pieces (IE games not like chess or checkers were both sides are identical) where one or two certain armies or builds didn't rise up to the top for tournament play. Its inevitable. Whenever you design a game where the pieces have varying attributes and some have special abilities that others don't, there's going to be a few that have a better synergy together than the others do. By their limited size and special circumstances, tournaments generally lend themsleves towards a slanted landscape.

 

Open playing with your friends is an entirely different story though, and I don't understand why anyone would let one or two mechanics that they don't like stand in the way of an otherwise excellent - not to mention fun - gaming experience.

 

You have just said it... CAV 2 is a poor game design.

I can name several.. Card games tend to do it by offering a multitude of options and methods to win. Magic, Guardians, VTeS, Rage

Other miniature games do it. Even if they have collectible in the rules.. DDM, SWM

Warlord seems to be a lot more balanced. You see all factions in tourny play.

privateer press with thier ugoigo and one trick ponies you see all factions represented.

Confrontation has a bunch of factions and while you see one or two consistantly winning it is not impossible to overcome

the tactics and make your army succeed.. if not win.

Even the evil empire of GW start out balanced and then as new armies are added gets way out of whack.

 

There is no reason Cav shouldn't suceed. with the criteria you have set for yourself.

Fast play

Limited use of tokens.

Big stompy robots.

Tactical.

Small playfield

Similar ruleset to Warlord.

Multiple balanced factions.

 

It is even mostly done.

The most infuriating part?

The see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil, that plagues the game

Reaper is a miniatures company.. not a game company.. They have finite resources to expend on game rules.

They have gotten Warlord scared away.. and are busy churning out the new miniatures for the game. People are happy

The new line RotD is due out. People are working on the rules and miniatures. People are excited.

The Cav line. Reaper has turned over the fluffy stuff to Mil-net who has been doing a good job keeping the game afloat with thier releases. However there is nothing new on the horizon for Cav as far as rules. People are disappointed.

 

If no one plays the game dies. You just said I need to play one faction to win at tournements. So that means I have to spend extra money to compete on top of the money I already spent for the models I like. Cav 2 is a house of cards.. built on an unbalanced set of rules... I also see a strong wind coming....

 

I don't know if you're referring to me or Chrome but I never said CAV 2 was a poor game design. I think there's a couple of things that could stand to be tweaked, but overall the rules are good. As Chrome said, there are some army builds and abilities that have better synergy than others. The challenge is to find new ways to design armies that work well together. It can be done, and my feeling is that it will be done by somebody. To quote Chrome, "it's inevitable." ::): (love ya, mean it)

 

I love the combined arms aspect of the game. If it were mecha-centric, we wouldn't be playing CAV, we'd be playing BattleTech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, after Shards comes out, everyones going to be using the new Rhino w/4 Maxim Ones. :ph34r:

 

Hey, I have that mini. And it scares people when I set it on the table. They sigh when it goes back in the case :rolleyes:

 

We all know that CAV is a growing game. Unfortunately it is a slow grow, but it is coming along. The best way to help it is to define what works for you and what doesn't. When you find what doesn't work site specific examples of why it doesn't work and if you have any ideas then toss them out there too. This will give people a chance to test them themselves. You don't have to be an 'official playtesster' to give a new idea a run. That way you will not only have a solid point for your likes and dislikes but you will have presented a logical solution to the problem as well.

 

I know that there is a lot of people out there that want CAV 2 to be a productive and grow and they are passionate in their opinions of the game. That passion is something that many other games don't have. What we need to do is focus that and CAV will be the Sci-fi/Mecha game to play. Will it be what eevryone wants? Not likely. You can't please everyone everytime. I do see the game as being something that people will enjoy playing for its streamlined play and feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...