Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vil-hatarn

CAV 2.M Beta [Fan Revision]

Recommended Posts

The current incarnation of the EW rules functions primarily off of number of units affected rather than a radius. We've made a few other tweaks as well which seem to have helped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've found that when using infantry to assault it works better to put them in transports, so they can remount and have the mobility to engage another target. Even when power armored and given jump jets they just don't have the mobility to keep up with all but the slowest CAVs.

 

I prefer to give drop troops either of the missile weapon upgrades, since it gives them some range to reach out and touch somebody to make up for their lack of mobility.  That and it's fun to launch a M3 attack with a rifle section against a CAV.

 

That's been my general experience as well; I'm particularly fond of drop infantry with both FiST and AT-23s for a really nasty one-two punch. Maybe too nasty--I'm strongly considering a one-strike-per-activation limit. In this particular case, however, it worked out fairly well; he caught my Emperors at the head of an alleyway, so while I could have run away with a couple of successful EXP checks it would have meant returning the Emperors to my deployment zone, which likely would have reduced their effectiveness even further than the loss of one of them.

 

The RC08 Grenade Launcers are an excellent surprise tool against the huddle too. IA w/no AOE means that they don't need LOS but never drift. So they can jump out of their transport and attack an ECM/EST model hiding behind a wall of bigger CAVs.

 

They were actually supposed to have no AOE in the original CAV 2 rules, but someone added the AOE stat at the last minute w/out realizing how it effected the weapon's mechanics.

 

So THAT's how that was supposed to work :wacko:  I think that also means it would suffer range band penalties to the attack roll like a direct fire weapon? I'll have to give it some consideration--I was intending to rewrite the drift rules into the main rules text as part of a wider effort to reduce the number of rules subsystems which make no appearance outside the appendices, but it would preclude having the grenade launcher function that way as it would make drift an intrinsic part of IA.

 

 

No need for drift, the concept of the no AOE grenade was also originally supposed to have a fixed distance.  At scale a under slung grenade would drift but in the abstract of the game distances it wouldn't have been too much to add a short range drift.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current incarnation of the EW rules functions primarily off of number of units affected rather than a radius. We've made a few other tweaks as well which seem to have helped.

 

Which sounds similar to how I felt it should have been. Linked vehicles, not forced to stay together but if the EW unit goes bye-bye, so does your cover. makes maneuver and cover vital to winning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The current incarnation of the EW rules functions primarily off of number of units affected rather than a radius. We've made a few other tweaks as well which seem to have helped.

 

Which sounds similar to how I felt it should have been. Linked vehicles, not forced to stay together but if the EW unit goes bye-bye, so does your cover. makes maneuver and cover vital to winning.

 

Reminds me of real life situations in S.A.C. when we were training B-52s to recognize and deal with the threat they were going to face in Vietnam.  When they got too close to the Radar site their jamming signal was so strong that we could lock on to it, track, and shoot down (simulated) the BUFFs.  They were doing low level runs to try to stay in Ground Clutter and popup just before the target they were going to bomb (simulated). They would use valleys and trench like depressions to try to evade us, more than once we had to notify the commanding Lt. for the shift; " Lt. bomber behind the trees!"  So the point is for low level runs they tried to use cover as much as possible even with jamming.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option that was discussed at one time was a MK 1 targeting system shot.  Turn off your guidance and fire your indirect at a point in space and pray the target is there when it lands.   Removed the issue with bubbles but increases the risk of drifting your shots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option that was discussed at one time was a MK 1 targeting system shot. Turn off your guidance and fire your indirect at a point in space and pray the target is there when it lands. Removed the issue with bubbles but increases the risk of drifting your shots.

This is an option--since the bubble is gone, target lock and ECM only work when targeting models, not points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-reference past versions no more! Enjoy a clarified and streamlined presentation of the rules!

 

That's right: as of this update, CAV 2.M has moved from an errata document to a full, internally consistent rulebook! Coming in at a sleek 30-odd pages, the final version will be a fully self-contained ruleset incorporating content from Shards, War for Sale, and our subsequent revisions.

 

Now for the less exciting news: presently, while absolutely playable, the rulebook is not quite in its final form. Several sections without substantive changes (Movement, Line of Sight) have been temporarily omitted in the interest of time, new graphics have yet to be generated, and portions of the Appendices (some Upgrades, the heavily revised Battlefield Assets) are not yet complete. We hope to include all of these alongside some final revisions later this year.

 

CAV 2.M Beta 7-26-16 Rulebook

CAV 2.M Beta 8-1-16 Data Cards

 

Please download, play, and enjoy! If you have any feedback, positive or negative, we'd love to hear it! And send me a PM if you're interested in contributing as a writer, artist, or more dedicated playtester!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool deal! Now maybe I can take my CAV models out of mothballs and get them back on the field! :)

 

Responding to your related comment in another thread since it's more on topic here--I think you'll enjoy the Starhawk VI's newfound capacity for collateral damage thanks to the Burst SA: optional doubled attack rolls on the GGCs :devil:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post above has been updated with a link to the data cards. Please forgive the roughness of the formatting--substantial revisions remain to be made for balance and variety between cards and I thought it better to get these out and start working towards the next set than to spend hours formatting each and every card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cool deal! Now maybe I can take my CAV models out of mothballs and get them back on the field! :)

 

Responding to your related comment in another thread since it's more on topic here--I think you'll enjoy the Starhawk VI's newfound capacity for collateral damage thanks to the Burst SA: optional doubled attack rolls on the GGCs :devil:

 

Yep, my UTMC units need to be able to spread the love with the Hawk Vi's! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As requested by Reaper in the CAV2 Rules Compilation thread, I'll be removing this project from the Reaper forums. Please PM me with an email address if you are interested in following further developments.

Share this post


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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By CitizenCane
      Is Jamming an ECM signal an active process that must be maintained like current Electronic Warfare counter Measures or is it more like an EMP that just turns off ECM?
       
      In practice:
       
      If my Talon activates ECM to block Target-Locks, then my opponent successfully Jams my ECM with his warden, is my ECM gone until next turn or would it be back if I immediately destroy the warden that jammed my ECM on my next activation during that turn?
       
       
    • By Rob Dean
      TL;DR: I don't understand tightly linked figure and rules ranges.
       
      I was writing my Huzzah report for my blog this morning, and one thing led to another.  My collaborator and I agreed at the convention that next year's game(s) was(were) going to be something using the combined resources of our 16th century home cast 40mm projects.  So, yesterday I dug out my bags of castings to see what I should start working on, and, after blogging this morning I decided that the proper thing to do was to muster the troops on the table and see what I really had. (My last inventory is both hidden somewhere and probably suspect anyway.)
       

       
      So, there they are: 4 artillery pieces, 18 assorted cavalry stands, 10 stands of pikes and pike command, 5 stands of swordsmen, 4 stands of improvised converted crossbowmen, and 8 stands of musketeers. (Three need repairs, which I can do today now that I've had them laid out.)  
       
      The story that goes with these figures is this:
       
      I have been interested in the 16th century, and the warfare of the 16th century, for longer than I can remember.  It's probably a combination of being an early music enthusiast and being exposed to Sir Charles Oman's History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century at an impressionable age.  In the early years of the current phase of my interest in the miniatures hobby (starting around 1987, say) I would play 16th century games at the conventions when I could, but never started my own project, being intimidate by painting all those Landsknechts.  
       
      By the time our club, the HAWKs, had started in 1994, I was already casting some of my own figures from commercial molds.  Chris Palmer, also a member of this board, and I both had fairly extensive mold collections, including two non-compatible 40mm 18th century sets.  Mine were Prince August, and his Nuernberger Meisterzinn. He also had a Meisterzinn catalog.  I don't know much about Meisterzinn, but they were already a zombie company (things kept in production but no new products) by 1994.  They had a small range of 16th century molds, and I thought that it would be an interesting challenge to collect them, cast up some figures, and put a game together.  A set of rules called Armati had just come out, with a Renaissance section and provision for playing with a single stand as a unit, so I used that as the basis for my casting.
       
      It took, as these things do, a couple of years to get things done to the point of playing games with them.  Not long after that, Chris decided to build some 40mm Leonardo da Vinci machines to go with them, inspired by a number of games of Leonardo Plus which were run at the cons for a few years.  Those rules didn't suit our collections, though, so we ended up staging a game using home rules at Cold Wars in 1999.  
       
      After that, the figures got put away for a while, until Ross and I ended up in discussions about how difficult it would be to convert enough of the figures to form the basis of a 16th century English army (still using the longbow).  From there, we ended up deciding to put on a game in 2004 using a scenario from the Anglo-Scots Wars of the 1540s.  The siege of Haddington in 1548 was nearly a perfect match for our hodgepodge collections, with mercenaries from all over Europe participating on one side or the other.  Once again, we had to write rules to suit our collection of miniatures.  My pictures of that game are unfortunately pre-digital, and buried somewhere.  We even got an award from the convention for that one, because it was unusual and eye-catching.
       
      Since then, we dust them off every few years, revise the rules again to taste, and set to.  If I'm at home, I'm somewhat limited by my collection, but I can still put on a decent two player game:

       
       
      I still haven't managed to get to the Siege of Malta in 1565, but Ross wants to do Turks this next year, so we'll see what happens.
       
      Anyway, after all of that, my point and question is this:
       
      With my DIY background, I have a hard time understanding what seems to me to be the ever increasing trend of players buying into tightly linked figure and rules lines.  I see posts/listen to podcasts/conversations/etc. in which people grouse about the speed with which games come out and die, and how that renders their miniatures useless.  I may be a little odd, but it's not that unusual in the historical community to accept that the figures you buy are going to end up being used with many sets of rules, that you may need to write a set to match the size of your collection, and that you might want to work on something that you like the look of, because the figures are forever, but the rules are ephemeral.
       
      Thoughts?  Are you a new person?  Another grognard like me?
       
       
       
       
    • By Rob Dean
      I picked up a copy of Osprey's Rogue Stars rules when they came out.  I still haven't had a chance to play, but I'm not thrilled with the 6 pages of errata for a 64-page book, and the general level of lists of modifers.  At least the Quick Reference Sheet is available online now, which it wasn't at publication last Christmas.
       
      Anyway, that leaves me with a growing collection of very generic SF figures and possibly no rules.  I'm looking for any recommendations for a similar set of rules for small crews or squads that can absorb a wide range of generic figures. I don't care about popularity or continuing support, since I am expected to do this on my own, so I don't really care whether there is an attached miniatures range (as long as it isn't required...)
       
      Any suggestions?
       
    • By Okari
      Hello! I have a question on the upcoming ReaperCon this year. For the Master series paint open contest rules on the page https://reapercon.com/contestI could not find anything regarding personally designed Models that an artist  3D prints and then paints.
       
      for use as an example:
       

       
      That is my first attempt at a model I personally designed in Blender, and then printed, in the style of warhammer 40k, though as a mention I really like the look of the grav-flux bombard from forgeworld so I created a very close facsimile of it for my model.
       
      Under the rules I'm seeing I'm assuming that in the Painters Division it would not matter if it is 3D printed given the source of the model is not given consideration, just the prep and painting quality.
       
      However I'm curious what, if any, the ruling on 3D designed and printed models are in the Open Division. Given the rules and the scoring system, sculpted models are judged by design originality, creativity, difficulty, etc, would a custom designed 3D printed model enjoy the same criteria for judging, or would it even be welcome in this division? Arguably this could extend to the diorama and vehicle division as well given the criteria in those.
       
      I would like to argue that 3D designed and printed models should be welcome in any division; my design time alone for the model I gave as an example was clocked at 60+ hours. And while my tools and medium are different than a clay or greenstuff sculptor, I don't put any less passion or hard work into it.
       
    • By Vytau
      I was looking over my collection of fabulous CAV models yesterday, and I had a thought regarding force organization (though the trigger was in fact reading CAVBoss's update in which he specifically called the Dervish an "attack" role CAV, but that's kind of beside the point):  

      I noticed after looking over my Ritterlich CAVs that I have a radically disproportionate number of recon and fire support CAVs, making it rather difficult to build a viable force within the force org rules.  In fact, without a house rule, I have no variety in my core force - it's always rhino + cataphract + something else.  If I don't WANT to take rhinos, I have to get my butt down to my FLGS or over to Reapermini.com to order more Cataphracts.  
       
      Furthermore, I've noticed after quite a few test games that all my forces are sort of ossifying around a core of tried-and-true attack CAVs with maybe an experimental recon or fire support or flight section.
       
      My thought, then, is:  what if forces were deployed around different role types instead of attack?  That is, what if I decided I wanted to play a "Fire Support Company" versus a "Recon" company - the rule being that I have to have more squads with the role of fire support than any other role?  

      Lest this sound like an attempt to build cheesy boomy-shooty armies, please know I am tipping my hat to CAV's overall sense of balance - if I were to field an army of Tiamat's, I have little doubt I'd wind up pounded in to paste as soon as my opponent got within range! 
       
      For a loose example:  I decide I want to run a recon company consisting of four squadrons - this simply means that two of those squadrons must be Type = Recon instead of the usual limitation in which two squadrons must bey Type = Attack.  

      This even has some fluff potential, I think, with key factions preferring their own TOEs:   Rach would be attack, of course, but Terrans might be flight or artillery; Malvernis might be Infantry; Adon might be Recon. 

      Just a thought I wanted to share with the group to see what happens.  
  • Who's Online   15 Members, 1 Anonymous, 43 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...