Jump to content

I'd change that card and why


Recommended Posts

Gunfighter--you make several good points, but I feel it necessary to point out...if everyone played on tables with no LoS corridors over 24", no one would ever play Adon again. The points you're paying for range just wouldn't be worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Gunfighter--you make several good points, but I feel it necessary to point out...if everyone played on tables with no LoS corridors over 24", no one would ever play Adon again. The points you're paying for range just wouldn't be worth it.

 

What is the point of playing a game that has 40-60 inch shots, if you never take them? Sounds like the table needs redesigning to take into account that. the game was meant to have long shots - that is the reason range bands exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious... a lot of you think that 20" is too long of a range for the Rotary Gauss Cannons, but what about the extended ranges on all of the other Gauss Cannons? We didn't just boost the range on the RGC's without consideration for all of the other models in the game, but did we go too far? Did we make the game's ranges too long?

 

Yes, I think so. I think all ranges need dialed back about 25-30%. Most everyone says that CAV plays best on a 6x8 table but most people have access to a 4x6 table. Do the math. Reduce Point blank to 8" and move up from there. It just makes the game more enjoyable on a standard table.

 

Giving the Rhino 4" extra range actually gives it an extra foot because effective range in CAV is about 40-60" which is the second band for most CAVs. The Rhino used to be a beast up close but one could find advantages against it by using effective ranged tactics because it's effective range was about 32-48". By giving it an extra 4" up close it's guns are on par or better than other units at <60". I also stated earlier that the Emperor needed dropped as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I wrote earlier, I am the sole voice of dissent. No problem, I usually am the dissenting view in my gaming group, example: I am the sole member of the group who still advocates Cav.....Period.

 

@ Vil-hatarn and Sethohman, just because the game has ranges up to 60", doesn't mean YOU HAVE TO SHOOT THAT FAR.

I used to hear that same argument from 40k players, "why would I play Space Marines if I can't get 60" shots with my heavy weapons?" or similar comments.

Real battlefields rarely have those mile-long shots that Cav2 ranges give players, hell, even in Russia in WWII, 2000m was about the farthest anyone could shoot (or see). Ok, let's take the technology of the game into account, yes you can see and target an enemy at 4-5000 meters, IF HE LETS YOU.

If I were a Cav commander and knew I was going up against say, Adonese, who would out range me, say against the Rach, You bet your butt I would look for the thickest, nastiest terrain I could find, to MAXIMIZE my strengths and MINIMIZE his.

Just because the damn game has 4 range bands, does not mean you have to use them in EVERY GAME. Come ON!!!

I had a bad enough time going from Cav1 to Cav1.5/Cav2 with the HUGE drop in movement that occurred, you want to hear screams, give the Hawk VI back its 24" move from Cav1 with the 36" range of the GGCs.

In Cav1 ALL the weapons had ranges that long, with enormous differences in movement, ie the Rhino only moved 8" as opposed to the 24" of the Hawk IV.

When movement was restricted to where it is now, the envelope became too small to use values that widely separated.

How many people here actually own AND PLAY a Terror Cav? It is a nasty machine, good weapons, good DV, a good value for an OEM machine, except of course, the MV of 6. I have never seen one, never read even one post from anyone here about using one in a game.

The changes in RC08 made the game the best balanced it has been, in my opinion, just because you like the idea of having long range shots, doesn't mean the game has to be about that.

I think that 20" should be the MINIMUM range for any non-flamer weapon system, period.

Start putting some terrain on the damn table, use cover and concealment like the real military does.

 

I can't believe there are this many people with as much knowledge about maneuver warfare, who are playing Cav games like they were damn Old West Gunfights.

If you guys are really playing 'stand-and-shoot' on naked tables, like it sounds you are doing, maybe you need to try something different for once.

 

My final statement: Chrome, Mad Pat, the Rhino and Emperor are fine AS IS, the T-bird and Ogre need their MV boosted, oh yeah, and the poor Terror too. Maybe someone will actually use one then.

 

Maybe the final version of these models will be what everyone else wants, oh well.

 

I just don't think that the game should be changed because people can't be bothered to work out new ways to play instead of woofing something is "too good" at anything.

 

But that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing about CAV 1 ranges is that your 36" shot dropped like a rock at the end of 36". There were no additional range bands. And I saw more than one instance of people who were good at range guessing dance around that 4-6" difference in weapon ranges to ignore defensive fire.

One possible solution to this debate would be to increase the penalty for range bands. I'm not saying that is what I want but it is an option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a lot of terrain. Yes - it does change your tactics. Does it make for a better game? It can. Does it make for a worse game? It can do that, too. Just because the game has a 12" point blank zone, doesn't mean every direct shot needs to be in that range.

 

Just not every game should be super amounts of terrain - that takes away from other parts of the game. Like never fielding CAVs with a low move value, or Adon long range shooting. I am guessing strikes don't get used that often, either, due to the limited field of LOS.

 

There is no right or wrong way to play - I just think that the game should be played a variety of ways. and the rules / data cards need to be balanced for that. From what you are saying, it wouldn't make a difference to your style of playing if the Rhino was 12", 16", or 24". He automatically will destroy anything he shoots at, while things that, by virtue or their cards are paying for long range superiority (T-Bird) will never get used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like papabees suggestion of making point blank only 8"--I've always found it a little odd that Rifle Teams can get point blank and a range penalty at the same time. Might need to rewrite how point blank and flamer interact (maybe just drop PB from flamer?), but otherwise I think it would work quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problems with a lot of terrain. Yes - it does change your tactics. Does it make for a better game? It can. Does it make for a worse game? It can do that, too. Just because the game has a 12" point blank zone, doesn't mean every direct shot needs to be in that range.

 

Most shots aren't at that range actually, between 12" and 24" is the normal engagement range.

 

Just not every game should be super amounts of terrain - that takes away from other parts of the game. Like never fielding CAVs with a low move value, or Adon long range shooting. I am guessing strikes don't get used that often, either, due to the limited field of LOS.

 

You're wrong and you're right here, correct super slow movers:T-birds, OEM Ogres, Terrors, rarely see the table top, the Faction Ogre gets on the table a little more. Since I own the only models in my group and my most complete armies are Terrans, Rach and Adon, Adon sees a LOT of table time. They don't normally get a range advantage, you are correct there.

Strikes don't happen much simply because everyone I play with prefers "boots on the ground". You don't see me advocating a change to the strikes simply because I don't like their current rules. Other players like them as is, I don't and I have alternatives to using them so, I do. Btw, my preferred Doctrine is Air Superiority, Flyers DO see a lot of use on our tables, I just prefer serious Gunships to spotters. MY playing style.

 

There is no right or wrong way to play - I just think that the game should be played a variety of ways. and the rules / data cards need to be balanced for that. From what you are saying, it wouldn't make a difference to your style of playing if the Rhino was 12", 16", or 24". He automatically will destroy anything he shoots at, while things that, by virtue or their cards are paying for long range superiority (T-Bird) will never get used.

 

And this is the problem, you (and the others advocating the change) want to punish my playing style because it doesn't fit in with yours. This is where I start jumping up and down and holding my breath, justifying a change because you don't like it instead of it being TRULY un-balanced is wrong. If, IF the T-bird were faster, and better able to keep up with my MOBILE play style it would get used more often, I love the model that much. But, as it is, it can't keep up with a mobile strike force, neither can it avoid an enemy force. Even with Piercing /5 on the PBGs, with only 2 DAs, the T-bird loses in a slug fest, because it can't maneuver to use those guns as well as another Super. When I can take T-hawks with Regents and Ronins for support, there is NO GOOD reason to use a T-bird, T-hawks outgun them, Regents are just as good at IA, with Ronins in the force, it is BETTER than using T-birds and a hell of a lot cheaper. I would rather see the T-bird with MV8 and lose Assault, as they are now, they are only good at standing still and pounding at long range, and since no one I game with will stand still, it is a moot point. Sure, with assault they can move and fire both IAs with no penalty, big deal, IAs aren't going to do most of the killing, even with their Rav4 and with MV6 they are never going to get a DA shot unless the opponent gives it to them, and that rarely happens. Yes, T-birds are the best long range IA platform in the game, BUT they are too slow to really take advantage of that range.

 

I realize this is one subject where most people are not going to agree with me, so I will just have to accept whatever change comes down the line. Most probably, I will be leaving my Rhinos and Emperors on the shelf beside my Thunderbirds, a shame really since right now they are doing what SuperHeavy vehicles are supposed to do, Dominating the area around them.

Shame they are too good at what they do.

 

One thing I would like to see, give the Regent back AA, for crying out loud, I hate having to use OEM vehicles in a pure faction force. (the Raptor II isn't worth it to me) Oh, and remove shredder from both the Regent and Ronin, I would rather have 1 point more general Rav, especially since (points permitting) I ALWAYS add Adjustable Munitions to my "good" IA models (FRS/3 or 4), except T-birds, 855pts is too much to begin with, another 100pts is just plain stupid.

But these are purely personal requests, if the powers that be don't think them warranted, so be it.

 

Not even in Cav1 was I perfectly happy with the rules as written, NEVER have been with any miniature game, I will always disagree with something.

 

Oh, and since it is a complete waste of time still screaming about the Section types and the minimum models required for sections, I have at least reconciled myself to house rules on that.

 

But the Rhino and Emperor getting neutered, NOT GONNA LET THAT GO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Gunslinger - just between you and me, the Rhino is my favorite CAV (well maybe 1b to the Mastodon's 1a) so you don't have too much to worry about there. It'll always be the king of the CAVs AFAIC. Just doing my part to try and keep your blood pressure in check. :poke:

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Gunslinger - just between you and me, the Rhino is my favorite CAV (well maybe 1b to the Mastodon's 1a) so you don't have too much to worry about there. It'll always be the king of the CAVs AFAIC. Just doing my part to try and keep your blood pressure in check. :poke:

 

Yes we can ::P:

 

It can be king of CAVs, but it shouldn't be so good that there is no reason not to take one. It needs to be competitive, and right now, it is just plain overpowering in most situations.

 

Enough said on the subject, I think, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Gunslinger - just between you and me, the Rhino is my favorite CAV (well maybe 1b to the Mastodon's 1a) so you don't have too much to worry about there. It'll always be the king of the CAVs AFAIC. Just doing my part to try and keep your blood pressure in check. :poke:

 

Yes we can ::P:

 

It can be king of CAVs, but it shouldn't be so good that there is no reason not to take one. It needs to be competitive, and right now, it is just plain overpowering in most situations.

 

Enough said on the subject, I think, though.

 

Ok, to prove that I am not just trying to be contrary. Is it the range that makes it overpowering or Blaster? I hear no one complaining about the Emporer like they do about the Rhino, is it Blaster that is the real culprit?

What if Blaster was removed? Would that lessen the feeling of being overpowered? Or the points could be increased to reflect the game effects.

I would rather see a points/SA change to any Cav rather than a DECREASE in any stat.

 

The OEM Rhino obviously is not a problem for anyone since it is still MV7 RNG16, Ok, what about this, what if the OEM version was boosted up to 500 points and the Faction Rhino went from 655 to maybe 725, a big enough points change that using more than one in a typical game is very difficult. It therefore becomes much rarer, and as a result has less support available, making the overall impact of the Cav less.

Instead of complaining it is overpowered, think outside the box and rather than automatically pointing the blame at the range of the guns try playtesting OTHER scenarios. Increased points, or removing Blaster from the SA's, or (yeah, I am gonna harp on this) use some MORE terrain on the table.

My point is, that the Rhino is SUPPOSED to scare the bejesus out of its opponents and make them THINK about how to handle it.

 

And one other thing, since it is the FACTION version that causes so much grief, YES there should be no reason NOT to take one, at least for Ritterlich players. Ritterlich and Terra are the ONLY factions with two FACTION Supers, the Mastadon is too specialized IMO to be a regular inclusion in a game (like the T-bird), BUT the Faction's SIGNATURE Cav SHOULD be included and SHOULD be a MONSTER. I think EVERY Faction's "brawler-style" SUPER should be an absolute BUTCHER (no pun intended) on the tabletop, they SHOULD inspire fear and dread.

 

 

 

And Chrome, thanks for the post, just that I see no one standing up for Ritterlich, so I figured I should.

 

that and we still houserule that Faction forces can include "war-prizes" such as captured Faction models. Same rules as Open Faction using Faction specific models. Means I can actually use the few Ritterlich and Templar models I own without trying to cobble together an Open force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The OEM Rhino obviously is not a problem for anyone since it is still MV7 RNG16, Ok, what about this, what if the OEM version was boosted up to 500 points and the Faction Rhino went from 655 to maybe 725, a big enough points change that using more than one in a typical game is very difficult. It therefore becomes much rarer, and as a result has less support available, making the overall impact of the Cav less.

Instead of complaining it is overpowered, think outside the box and rather than automatically pointing the blame at the range of the guns try playtesting OTHER scenarios. Increased points, or removing Blaster from the SA's, or (yeah, I am gonna harp on this) use some MORE terrain on the table.

My point is, that the Rhino is SUPPOSED to scare the bejesus out of its opponents and make them THINK about how to handle it.

 

Ever thought outside the box, and tried the game with less terrain? Not every fight is in a jungle. There are city fights, which have large firing lanes. And mountains / hills where things can get high and have pretty good LOS, also. Shards scenario - platform in the water - no terrain at all. I have played with gobs, and with more sparse. They both lend themselves to fun games.

 

Honestly, if the Rhino was kicked to 725, it would be fine. Being 50 points cheaper than the Emperor, yet having an additional direct attack and Blaster makes it unbalanced, IMO. The Emperor is paying a premium for all but useless IFM. Yes, it has a higher RAV, but no Blaster to go along with it. And 1 point lower DV. The Rhino is an awesome buy compared to that - higher DV, more attacks, blaster, and 50 points cheaper.

 

The Rhino is supposed to scare people, but I cannot even shoot at the faction one - at any range, it will do more damage on return fire than anything I can shoot at it. Even shooting 3 or 4 CAV - if you are at range, the Rhino is still better then most things. 3 Dictators at 50 inches and EST still needs 9s against a Rhino in an ECM bubble. The Rhino, without EST on the defense, needs a 3 to wound a Dictator.

 

Close in to 20 inches. Same Scenario, the 3 Dictators with EST still need 7s. 6 main guns can still only reliably generate 1 wound off that. The Rhino autohits in return fire. At no point can 3 Dictators, which cost more points, ever be cost effective against a Rhino.

 

With a 16 inch range band, you bring a more favorable balance to the Dictators. Or, by increases it's cost to over 700 points, you can give the balance against the same three Dictators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that all models are over-ranged for the average table size, but a point increase would help with the Rhino and Emporer. And yes Blaster is one of the reasons for the issue. The Centurion is 647 pts. The Ogre is 709. Both of these models get smoked by the Rhino. Compare the Centurion and Rhino.

 

At 60" = Rhino 2 @ +7 / 2 @ +2 Centurion 2 @ +5 / 2 @ +2

At 40" = Rhino 2 @ +9 / 2 @ +3 Centurion 2 @ +5 / 2 @ +3

At 20" = Rhino 2 @+11/ 2 @ +4 Centurion 2 @ +7 / 2 @ +4

 

At less than 36" inches or so the Rhino should dominate, but the Centurion is designed to be a long range fire platform. For equal points somewhere along the bell curve the Centurion should have an advantage but the current ranges require about a 12' table to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While Blaster keeps coming up...should also mention the Spike Rotary (from Kolditz). Compared to the regular Spike, that pricing just doesn't seem like it can be right--only a 40 point increase for +1 Mov and a vastly superior (roughly twice as powerful, with blaster on top) weapon? I've never played against them, but I feel like a full army of them (perhaps with some Flail Straight Shots for extra air cover) would be a bit unfair.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...