Jump to content

How well supported is CAV?


Irishrover13
 Share

Recommended Posts

Construction can be fun and nice, to a point. Then it delves into munchkinism, which just kills a game IMO. I like the option to possibly swap out a weapon or two or a device or two on a vehicle but generally a vehicle should be left alone save for a couple of minor tweaks as variants. Just like on the battlefield now, a tank is generally a tank (yes, there are variants but the changes are not on par with munchkinism) so a CAV should be a CAV. Construction can be fun but that's better left for other stompy robot games with volumes of rules that takes hours to play with a few models on the board. Funny how even Battletech now is looking to streamline their system, faster gameplay leads to more models on the table which leads to actual tactics which leads to a ton of fun. It's not about the construction but about the combined arms element, that has always been the biggest strength of CAV IMO, that other games missed out on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Construction can be fun and nice, to a point. Then it delves into munchkinism, which just kills a game IMO. I like the option to possibly swap out a weapon or two or a device or two on a vehicle but generally a vehicle should be left alone save for a couple of minor tweaks as variants. Just like on the battlefield now, a tank is generally a tank (yes, there are variants but the changes are not on par with munchkinism) so a CAV should be a CAV. Construction can be fun but that's better left for other stompy robot games with volumes of rules that takes hours to play with a few models on the board. Funny how even Battletech now is looking to streamline their system, faster gameplay leads to more models on the table which leads to actual tactics which leads to a ton of fun. It's not about the construction but about the combined arms element, that has always been the biggest strength of CAV IMO, that other games missed out on.

I agree. When I say make new units it would be to fill holes in factions TO&E and then make them "official" to CAV2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem with builder games - and I love them! - is the Perpetual Gaming Group Arms Race. Rather than working out tactical wrinkles, adapting to other's style and really getting into the game, you get an ongoing tit-for-tat where everyone tries to win via engineering a device that defeats the other devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. When I say make new units it would be to fill holes in factions TO&E and then make them "official" to CAV2.

I understand the desire to do that, but if you fill in all of the holes so that every faction is the same, why do you need factions anymore? At that point you're back to CAV 1 where anyone could use any model. If anything, I wish that CAV 2's factions had even more to make them stand apart from each other, but w/the limited range that a model's stats can have that can be hard to do. (For example TL is always 1-3. Giving something a 6 would break the game.)

 

On the other hand, I've always felt that the #1 reason why BattleTech has stayed so popular over the years is b/c of its mech-building system. People just love to build mechs!

 

Then the fluff is reason #2, with the slow, sucky, cumbersome rules a distant 3rd. :wacko:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CAV 1 books are at Troll and Toad for under a buck each,

The CAV 1 rules used to be available in PDF on the internet. The old CAVHQ site seems to be down, but I bet some Google-Fu or Way Back Machine magic would turn them up.

 

CAV: SO beta is free to download.

No, Jon took them down the last time he redid the rules. They're only available to the select core of beta-testers now, and they say they haven't heard from him in weeks. (Just saying that b/c it directly relates to the OP.)

 

2) Wait until CAV:SO is released.

Been doing that for 3 and a half years now.

 

Reaper has invested in Bones molds for at least 8-12 of the CAV sculpts, so within the next year it's fairly certain that CAV SO will see release.

That is a totally unfounded opinion.

 

Yes they made molds for 8 plastic CAVs, but nothing is for certain. I can think of over a dozen CAV models that Reaper paid people to design but were never made. Since they made those "masters" specifically to take to GAMA, it would seem that their future would hinge on interest from distributors and FLGS's. GAMA was 4 months ago and we haven't heard a peep about them since, which doesn't bode well.

 

 

Thanks for the update about the CAV SO rules. I guess if you want them, you have to email folks who might have them already.

 

As for the CAV 1 rulebooks, I don't think the Journals of Recognition were ever free online, and they are pretty important. When all three books can be had for just over 8 bucks total (including shipping) I think the trio of CAV books should be a must-buy for any mech fan. I originally bought them to have a pictorial reference for the CAV units listed in the "Future War Commander" rulebook.

 

Regarding an upcoming CAV models and game release, it may be my opinion, but it's not entirely unfounded. A couple of hundred dollars for a metal sculpt is not at all the same thing as paying a few Tens of Thousands of dollars for each Bones mold. Nothing suggests that Reaper is going to throw away that kind of $, and it's not a huge logical leap to assume that the release of the CAV bones will coincide with the release of the new rules.

 

CAV:SO has construction rules. it is actually a separate PDF that was half as large as the core book.

 

I find this both interesting and frightening. Highly detailed creation mechanics is one of the things that many BT fans love about the system. Many folks like to have access to the toolkit that allows them to build whatever they want for their game system, even if such creations never see the field of battle.

 

I on the other hand found my eyes glazing over when I read through the "Techmanual" for BT, and much prefer the fast unit creation of games like Mech Attack which are much easier to use, though they accompany a game that is much more abstract.

 

With all the TROs I often found myself wondering why I would use one Mech over another because their load-outs were so similar.

 

If you're a fan of the BT universe, you play one over the other because it better fits the faction or era in which you are playing or simply because you happen to like the model or fluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding an upcoming CAV models and game release, it may be my opinion, but it's not entirely unfounded. A couple of hundred dollars for a metal sculpt is not at all the same thing as paying a few Tens of Thousands of dollars for each Bones mold. Nothing suggests that Reaper is going to throw away that kind of $, and it's not a huge logical leap to assume that the release of the CAV bones will coincide with the release of the new rules.

 

If every person Reaper talked to at GAMA said they wouldn't touch CAV with a 10' pole, it really doesn't matter if they've spent $1,000,000 on molds. They're not going to throw good money after bad to pay for the plastic materials, the packaging, and most importantly the man-hours it would take to make a bunch of CAVs that they'd never sell.

 

If that is the case, the only way we'll see plastic CAVs is through KickStarter or if some 3rd party decides to pay the production costs themselves and cuts a deal with Reaper.

Edited by Chrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree. When I say make new units it would be to fill holes in factions TO&E and then make them "official" to CAV2.

I understand the desire to do that, but if you fill in all of the holes so that every faction is the same, why do you need factions anymore? At that point you're back to CAV 1 where anyone could use any model. If anything, I wish that CAV 2's factions had even more to make them stand apart from each other, but w/the limited range that a model's stats can have that can be hard to do. (For example TL is always 1-3. Giving something a 6 would break the game.)

 

 

 

True but I was mainly thinking in terms of changing the existing cards for play balance, FREX I thought when the Rhino's range was increased from 16" to 20" it threw things out of whack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regarding an upcoming CAV models and game release, it may be my opinion, but it's not entirely unfounded. A couple of hundred dollars for a metal sculpt is not at all the same thing as paying a few Tens of Thousands of dollars for each Bones mold. Nothing suggests that Reaper is going to throw away that kind of $, and it's not a huge logical leap to assume that the release of the CAV bones will coincide with the release of the new rules.

 

If every person Reaper talked to at GAMA said they wouldn't touch CAV with a 10' pole, it really doesn't matter if they've spent $1,000,000 on molds. They're not going to throw good money after bad to pay for the plastic materials, the packaging, and most importantly the man-hours it would take to make a bunch of CAVs that they'd never sell.

 

If that is the case, the only way we'll see plastic CAVs is through KickStarter or if some 3rd party decides to pay the production costs themselves and cuts a deal with Reaper.

 

Meh, "if everyone tells"... .. "if this is the case" ... "if some third party"...

 

That's alot of "iffing", none of which is more convincing than several tens of thousands of dollars in molds. The only logical reason to sink that kind of money in molds is if you've got plans to promote the line and it's most likely that reboot of CAV is going to have a ruleset to go with it.

 

I do however, think it's highly likely that we'll see them via kickstarter. They've got the molds, they've got a ruleset. Logic (though often skewed in this business) suggests that we'll see CAV minis and a game in the next year. The only real question in my mind is whether it'll be kicked off with a kickstarter (most likely) or just on the reaper website.

 

I think you''re so frustrated over the many past failures with CAV (and there have definitely been a few) that it's clouding your perception of recent events. Understandable, but not logical.

Edited by Eilif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the TROs I often found myself wondering why I would use one Mech over another because their load-outs were so similar.

 

 

If you're a fan of the BT universe, you play one over the other because it better fits the faction or era in which you are playing or simply because you happen to like the model or fluff.

 

Oh believe me I get that having been a big fan of BT. But even within the faction I felt there were many that were so similar that aesthetics were the only deciding factor and the older I got the less I liked the visual presentation of the mechs. Then again I started when the unseen were still what were shown in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's when I started also. I like alot of what has come afterwards, but most of my favorite designs are the unseen.

 

Interestingly I liked alot of the helicopter cockpit style mechs of the Mechwarrior clix game, many of which seem to me to have similar design elements as CAV's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that draws me to Battletech is the fluff, it has one of the best universe's out there that is fleshed out which is what draws a person to play their favorite factions mech. Add to that how there are so many 'historical' battles you can play out and you have a canonical storyline to draw from, it's easy to get sucked in and want to play. Until you play however, then you find volumes of rules that require study time to remember, otherwise you'll fall prey to a rules lawyer who also happens to be a mech lab munchkin whore, taking a vehicle onto the field that is legal by the rules but when you look at it in reality (yes, I know it's a sci-fi game but still) it shouldn't last a second under fire.

 

CAV2 was fine IMO, it had some issues that the errata fixed for the most part with other items being discussed. Personally, the one thing I disliked the most was the electronics. They served a good purpose but also created other problems as well. The one thing CAV was lacking, but was being addressed, was adding more 'fluff' and fleshing out the universe a little more. As I said before, Battletech has such a huge and rich universe that it makes you want to play as players can attach more easily to a faction based on characters and situations they've read about and know the "why we fight" backstory becomes as important as the "how to fight" rules that comes with a game.

 

It's a true shame that CAV is sitting in the state that it has been, when it could be and should be, widely supported and played. BONES would be a nice help but without a rules system in place that is not overly complicated but streamlined and fun, with great support, well then things will stay as they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... BONES would be a nice help but without a rules system in place that is not overly complicated but streamlined and fun, with great support, well then things will stay as they are now.

 

"... Bare Bones CAV ..."

 

It has a nice ring to it.

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...