CAV: SO Rach Kraken Preview

[Magnus Mercury]

How they stay over a battlefield is up to your imagination. With variable thrust, anti-grav, etc to choose from

 

"Do a barrel roll!" 

 

Also, I think your point is dead-on:  a 4" fighter would look awesome and be fun to paint, but I suspect that from a gameplay aspect it may not work out so well.  Especially if (as Vytau mentioned) a player uses multiple aircraft in a game.  I think they would definitely dominate over the CAVs (at least visually) if they're that much larger.

 

Also, this is the future!  Surely they've figured out a way to make aircraft smaller, right? 

[Girot]

Having played the X - wing table top with some of the larger ships I think a true scale aircraft would be visually fine.

The only game play problem I see is overlapping bases.

If one uses longer flight pegs this can be avoided.  I've been playing around with some designs for thicker (thus more stable) clear acrylic bases that use 3-4" flight pegs.  With the lighter material these could work fairly well.

[TaleSpinner]

For what it is worth, in CAV 2 a Flight section could only have 2 models in it.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

What was the problem with the original Kraken model as a flying troop transport?

http://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/47033-release-the-krakens/?hl=kraken

 

And I've never had any problems with using the "True Scale" aircraft models on my 4x4 table. The only reason I don't have more of the True Scale ones is that I didn't want to repurchase models I already had in the smaller scale.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Sergeant_Crunch

[sethohman]

Agreed Sergeant.  Nothing wrong with adding new models to the range.  Changing the battlefield function, and redecigning, and re-sizing models for no apparent reason makes no sense to me.

 

Add in new designs and call it something else.  Leave the current models and names alone.

[papabees]

Agreed Sergeant.  Nothing wrong with adding new models to the range.  Changing the battlefield function, and redecigning, and re-sizing models for no apparent reason makes no sense to me.

 

Add in new designs and call it something else.  Leave the current models and names alone.

Look, regardless of the hows and whys, the previous incarnations of CAV for all intents and purposes have no support. If someone wants to play them, awesome they are there to play. I think that as we approach the new game the best way to make it an enjoyable experience is to view it in isolation from previous rulesets, fluff included. Most of the old guard will likely be able to look at "X" and say they liked it better in the old version (myself included) but at this point I think that's water under the bridge. Now as to the models themselves, I think it was mentioned somewhere that some of the digital files for the models had been corrupted so in some cases they are required to create "new" models.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

Nobody mentioned the previous rules, you're the one bringing them up. I think my question is still valid, as is my comment regarding not having any problem using the correctly scaled aircraft with the CAV models on a small(ish) table.

[papabees]

...Changing the battlefield function...

Maybe I misinterpreted the post, but how does one have any idea whether or not a models battlefield function changed without referring to previous rules (in my mind when i say this I think rulebooks, which to me include the fluff as well)? As to your question specifically, I was speculating that maybe the Kraken digital file was one that went by-by.

 

**edited to make coherent sense at 6ish in the morning.

Edited August 15, 2014 by papabees

[smokingwreckage]

I'd still give it a re-name for the new role. Even if it's the Kraken SV or something (support version?). Then provide rules for the old role Kraken, for people who own one and want to use it that way; even if it's just on the website, it still solves the problem. The trick being to not needlessly generate ill-will amongst the old guard.

 

Plenty of military vehicles over time have undergone all sorts of refits and role changes. With nanotech making up a portion of their interior gubbins this is likely to be even more prevalent. Just give it a variant name and fluff it in; as an added bonus it gives the background additional depth and verisimilitude.

 

And all the more reason to stick strictly to scale. With volume of tin being far less of an issue, just.... just don't do it to yourselves.

Edited August 15, 2014 by smokingwreckage

[papabees]

I'd still give it a re-name for the new role. Even if it's the Kraken SV or something (support version?). Then provide rules for the old role Kraken, for people who own one and want to use it that way.

Not a bad idea.

[Heisler]

A 4" model like that takes up a lot of space in the mold.

[Maredudd]

A 4" model like that takes up a lot of space in the mold.

I'd hazard a guess that it takes up all the space in the mold . . . :-)

[Heisler]

 

 

A 4" model like that takes up a lot of space in the mold.

I'd hazard a guess that it takes up all the space in the mold . . . :-)

Fair enough, but it might be the difference between getting one in mold and 2-3 in a mold. I would have no problem with aircraft being at half scale.

 

In 15mm games we typically use 144th scale aircraft, well except for dive bombers full scale stukas are to cool to pass up.

[Chrome]

 

I'd still give it a re-name for the new role. Even if it's the Kraken SV or something (support version?). Then provide rules for the old role Kraken, for people who own one and want to use it that way.

Not a bad idea.

 

 

Geez, it's not like that hasn't been done since Day One. Gladiator II, Starhawk V, and Sovereign III were all original models, then we got the Hawk VI and Dictator '70 later on.  I've never heard anyone say "this game has too many cool models", so what's with the need to replace existing models with new ones when they could just add new models and have even more coolness? So seriously, why have 2 models (Kraken and the new Recluse) when you could have 4? (Kraken, Kraken A, Recluse, and some name more fitting of that other new mech)

 

And any talk about redoing models b/c their files became corrupted is rubbish. Reaper could email the modelers and get copies of the files w/in a day or less. They've done it several times in the past.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Chrome

[Sergeant_Crunch]

 

...Changing the battlefield function...

Maybe I misinterpreted the post, but how does one have any idea whether or not a models battlefield function changed without referring to previous rules (in my mind when i say this I think rulebooks, which to me include the fluff as well)? As to your question specifically, I was speculating that maybe the Kraken digital file was one that went by-by.

 

**edited to make coherent sense at 6ish in the morning.

 

Because the giant doors in the back of the model clearly indicate that the Kraken is(was?) a transport model without referencing the CAV2 datacard for it, not an attack aircraft as indicated by this design.