Full speed

[Chrome]

The -1 penalty to ECM and Target Lock remains in effect for the remainder of the entire turn.

Should be changed to "remains in effect until the model's next activation".

 

You guys really need to set CAVHQ up with some news on the front page like you do on Reapermini.com. †Just a brief comment that something's been updated would be great, otherwise its too hard to go through every page looking for new material and updates.

[Gobbo]

You guys really need to set CAVHQ up with some news on the front page like you do on Reapermini.com. †Just a brief comment that something's been updated would be great, otherwise its too hard to go through every page looking for new material and updates.

Agree with you here.  I like looking through the Cavhq, but I think it would be nice to have a news section on page one!

[bent brush]

Does this man never shut upÖÖ..

 

 

We are now back to the concept of mixing responsibilities in the cockpit of the CAV

 

>The model that is moving at Full Speed suffers a -1 penalty to ECM and Target Lock rolls.

 

This makes no sense.

 

The Pilot does not control the ECM. The gunner controls it. †And because the gunner controls it there should be no disadvantage to the ECM.

 

Back to the Drive By example. The driver of the Car speeds up the car. But has no opportunity to maneuver the car in a manner that will prevent damage to the car.

 

Thus the modifier should be a ñ1 to the ìArmorî of the model. This would represent the pilot fully concentrating on maneuvering the CAV for speed and not safety.

 

The Pilot does not control the Target Lock. The gunner controls it. And because the gunner controls it there should be no disadvantage to the Target Lock.

 

Back to the Drive By example. The driver of the Car speeds up the car. Has no opportunity to maneuver the car in a manner that will prevent damage to the car and the gunner is capable of unloading the weapon without the Drivers help. However if the car is shot in return the driver is not expecting it and is susceptible to making poor judgment mistakes.

 

Rather because the Driver is intent on the speed of the CAV, to the exclusion of the safety of the CAV, the CAV should suffer from a ñ1 on Suppression checks. †This would represent the pilot, in their single mindedness, being startled by being shot and more susceptible to panic. †

 

>The -1 penalty to ECM and Target Lock remains in effect for the remainder of the entire turn.

 

The -1 penalty to ìArmorî and ìSuppression Rollî remains in effect until the next activation of the CAV in question.

[Chrome]

1) Are there a lot of drive by's in your neighborhood or something? ;-)

 

2) If a modifier is applied to the armor roll, it should only be to the Pilot's skill level, not the CAV's ARM rating. †A Starhawk's ARM isn't going to drop to +2 b/c its moving fast. †However the problem there is that Reg pilots get no bonus, so there's nothing to subtract. †You'd only be penalizing Vets, Elites and Aces.

 

3) I can see the Wizzo having a harder time aquiring TL when moving faster. †Its a lot easier to hit something when you're firing from a slow moving vehicle than from one that's going fast. †Especially if both you and your target are moving.

 

4) I agree on the ECM part though, I don't see why the Wizzo would have a hard time making himself harder to hit just b/c the model is moving faster.

[bent brush]

1) Are there a lot of drive by's in your neighborhood or something? ;-)

 

Not anymore I moved. Just thought I would continue the example from my other posts, kind of like a theme.

 

2) If a modifier is applied to the armor roll, it should only be to the Pilot's skill level, not the CAV's ARM rating.  A Starhawk's ARM isn't going to drop to +2 b/c its moving fast.  However the problem there is that Reg pilots get no bonus, so there's nothing to subtract.  You'd only be penalizing Vets, Elites and Aces.

 

Very true and thus we have a reason to say this is a non-functional rule.

 

3) I can see the Wizzo having a harder time acquiring TL when moving faster.  Its a lot easier to hit something when you're firing from a slow moving vehicle than from one that's going fast.  Especially if both you and your target are moving.

 

This is true but consider chances are there is more than 1 bullet being sprayed from the barrel. Another reason I use the Drive By Example. You donít have to be a good shot just to hit something when spewing out rounds.

 

4) I agree on the ECM part though, I don't see why the Wizzo would have a hard time making himself harder to hit just b/c the model is moving faster.

 

True but can you see why the Pilot might be a bit more agitated if they were to get shot?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well I could add to that the fact that when propperly motivated... aka you are being shot at... humans are capable of some impressive stuff. (Jumping out of a perfectly good ambulance onto a ditch when the thing was still moving) That said... at times that reality is better left where it belongs, real life.

 

That said, from your examples, the only thing I can say is that the job of a WSO in real life usually does not include operating the craft. From the fluff in CAV that is not the impression I get, aka the WSO is capable of actually piloting the CAV, sort of kind off, and the other way around the pilot is capable of operating the targetting gear.

 

That said I can see a -1 modifier to the pilot and WSO skill since the pilot is doing both and cannot fully concentrate on his or her job.

 

Nadin

[Leech]

I agree with the TL and ECM modifiers, because the way I see it a Breeder can only supply so much power and so when the CAV is not running at battle speed it's drawing more from the BReeder.... thus the computers are working with less power which means less rf energy (and probably more things too).

 

I also agree that getting a TL when moving faster is harder, but I think that would blend in with the power drought within the CAV so the -1 is cool as far as I'm concerned.

 

I also agree that defending against incoming rounds would be tougher. And I'm curious Chrome and BB, you guys never heard of a negative modifier :o) So the regular pilot's modifier is +0, well apply a -1 modifier tot hat because of speed and you get a -1 modifier... the modifier applies regardless and you could always consider it a situational modifier (which is what it is, essentially).

 

I haven't read the updated rule (just found out about it) so I can't commend on it all, but I don't think this is a problem. You apply a -1 modifier to EVERYTHING the CAV does until the next activation (including defensive fire, because it's harder to hit when you're moving fast).

 

So, while Bent Brush's example of the drive-by is a valid one, in his case he's not got a computer (drawing power from the car's powertrain) doing the firing... which would easily explain this modifier.

 

I have no problem with this, and I'll probably use it in my demo tomorrow.

[Akela]

We did some playtesting with full speed this week here at the shop.

 

1) Should be penalties to TL and ARM (and only be during the activation of the model that performed the full speed movement). No point in tracking it from turn-to-turn, it's a headache in a big game. That way the model doesn't shoot as good nor is it as agile when taking the defensive fire (basically a quasi-suppressed state).

2) For ease of math and also since nothing is tracked from that round forward, should probably be "double the power cost"

[Leech]

So movement takes double the power cost than normal? Hmm, I'd perfer to see that stay at 50% extra, to tie in with the movement rate increase.

 

As for applying to ARM and TL, why not ECM rolls? The TL is the computer as well so if the computer gets a mod in one situation why not another? I agree it should apply to ARM rolls though.

 

And I don't see why you can't track it. You just have to remember how far it moved... perhaps a marker like we used at Origins for suppression? I actually like the idea that firing still gains the -1 to the enemy, but that's me :o)

[Chrome]

I'd perfer to see that stay at 50% extra, to tie in with the movement rate increase.

But that's not the way power and speed work.  They're not a one to one ratio.  The faster you go, the more power it requires to maintain your speed.

 

And I don't see why you can't track it. You just have to remember how far it moved... perhaps a marker like we used at Origins for suppression?

Exactly.  I've already got little suppression counters, I'm just going to use one of them turned upside down to mark which model moved Full Speed.

 

A few other interesting things I noted:

The Badger is the only model not capable of using Full Speed.  

Most models don't have enough power available to engage Full Speed after their first two DTs.

It really makes the models unique.  Most can move Full Speed and still have enough power to fire one weapon, but there are a rare few that can fire both of their main weapons.  There are also a good number of models that can't fire any of their weapons at Full Speed.

 

Something else I realized is that Defensive Fire should be effected by Full Power.  I'd say to determine how much power a CAV has available for DefFire, subtract the modified MM cost from the available power.  So a CAV using 12 MM to go Full Speed and only having 12 total power would only be able to use 2 points of power to fire weapons, rather than all of its power as usual.

 

This would be explained by all of the power being diverted to the drive system, ala The Big Dance.  

 

Or maybe just dis-allow Def Fire completely.

[Leech]

Chrome, the reason I think it should be a one to one ratio is because most of the inefficiencies inside the drive train will be negated by the Bellar Joints (those wonderful purpetual motion hinges/joints). But I can see your point.

 

I think power should be limited for as long as the modifier is in effect (until the next activation), which would definately make this at a risky proposition... you mightn't be able to fire back when you need too.

 

However, this does raise the question: should the -1 modifier for Full Speed apply to defensive fire as well as the reduced power availability?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Yes, to make it short and sweet and to the point

 

Nadin