Jump to content

CAVBOSS

Administrators
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by CAVBOSS

  1. Things learned today. 1. Again it's a numbers game. The side with more squads gets more cards in the initiative deck and more opportunities to react to and counter enemy moves. Absolutely. This is designed to give forces with more flexible builds (more squads) to have a greater effect on game play while also discouraging points heavy squads. 2. If one side brings a recon squad and the other doesn't, the side that doesn't is at a severe disadvantage. Between ECM not allowing target locks making long range fire inaccurate and preventing the use of Guided Missiles and the Recon Squad ability to move flipped initiative cards to the bottom of the deck that weakly armed, poorly armored squad can cause problems way out of proportion to the points spent. Correct. Have more reconnaissance is always a good thing during a fight. If you know what the enemy is doing and he has no idea what you are then you are going to have an advantage. The expanded initiative deck will lessen this a bit as it will add more cards that will help, especially in smaller games like this. 3. Overdriven PBG's hurt like hell. Keep them away from you or kill them on the other side of the table. Yeah if you let them close the range and get good numbers to hit they can really tear holes. 4. Fire Support Models need Target Locks, and LOS (if possible) in order to use Rockets effectively. The idea of raining Hellfire down on your enemy from a safe distance away is a nice one but in practice without Target Locks the penalties to Long or Extreme range bombardments are too high. I don't think a single IF salvo fired today landed on target. All damage done was from scattered shots. Trying to rain hellfire with models not specially designed with that idea in mind is hard. Building a force group with that in mind can make a big difference in how effective they are. Most models have rockets for more of a harassing effect. The game is weighted towards direct fire to keep the rocket duels to a minimum and keep the models moving about. The extreme range mod can be overcome with a model with wizzo, a target lock, and 2 models with FCS. In the rules update fire support models will get some help with this. Great tactic is to have a recon model (equipped with rockets) with fire support models, all of them using CFPs. The recon model can lock up the spot and on a successful strike point transfer that to all the others hiding behind a hill. Ouch! 5. Hover tanks skimming over water look cool. Hover tanks skimming over water and then destroying Super Heavy CAV's in 1 turn look REALLY Cool. !!! P.S. CAVBoss if you're reading this every faction needs to have models for it's Recon Vehicles. They are too damn useful not to use and by my count Malvernis, Ritterlich and Almirithil have none and Adon has the Dragonfly aircraft which is nice and all but it doesn't have ECM. I've said in the past that if people will tell me where there are holes in model types I can look at filling them in! SO make a list!!!
  2. Correct. In the rules update though APA will no longer be able to "jam" as that will become unique to ECM only.
  3. List building will be included with the upcoming rules update. Model size and type will remain in place when building a doctrine based force group. We are discussing adding a new secondary squad type (we are referring to it as a provisional squad for now) that will allow you to combine CAVs and Tanks into a 4-6 model squad (bypassing the normal squad size) for more options when building units. This squad would not be limited by a normal faction's model count. They would receive a sub-squad designation of attack/fire support/recon like aircraft. Thoughts?
  4. Sorry but there will be no stream today. See you Wednesday! CB
  5. Better than "space herpes!" (very old Ice Pirates reference for you young'uns!)...
  6. Here are links to the four fonts for Adon, Rach, Ritter, and Malvern. These are script fonts so like what you would see in a book or other document. I'm happy with Adon and Rach, but the other two are not what I had in mind so they will be going back to drawing board. https://talon-games.com/downloads/FONTS/Adon Regular.ttf https://talon-games.com/downloads/FONTS/Rach Regular.ttf https://talon-games.com/downloads/FONTS/Ritterlich Regular.ttf https://talon-games.com/downloads/FONTS/Malvernis Regular.ttf
  7. FLight Squads get "dual" designations so if you have two recon aircraft they do count as a "recon" squad.
  8. It's a weird situation that I think points out a problem with both TAG and Target-Lock coming into play at the same time. Im thinking that the +1 for semi-guided should probably apply to the combat roll rather than the strike-point.
  9. This is copied from a post on FB discussing a trick that I think would work great on MDF pieces...I will try a find a tutorial somewhere with more detail.
  10. Unfortunately not at this time. We are looking at a couple of options done the road to see if possible but are waiting until the rules update is released so we can have the latest version of the cards available.
  11. Not yet. It was put in there for future uses or to allow players to come up with something that would take advantage of it as a home rule.
  12. Yeah you have to spend both APs to deploy. You could always use a CP to get an extra action for at least one model. This was decided as a compromise to keep someone on the ground from getting waxed without any real way to avoid it (ie being unable to shoot at the descending attackers). This makes you choose to deploy around someone who has already activated or take your chance vs someone who hasn't on the ground.
  13. We havent released anything that can..yet!
  14. https://www.sciencealert.com/2d-supersolid-has-been-produced-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-incredibly-weird
  15. Here is one that wasnt what I thought it was going to be...
  16. I typically just set the base on top and havent had a problem with it tipping over.
  17. We have the opportunity to add five new FREE emotes for our followers and I wanted to see what you might like to see. We also have three slots available for those wishing to spend "bits," and are looking for suggestions for these as well! SO let us know what you think!!! CB
  18. https://talon-games.com/downloads/SCENARIO/FLASHPOINT_CAMPAIGN.pdf A mini-campaign system for you to try out for CAVSO! CB
  19. Its also totally legal for the sake of a faction force and while it disallows doctrines right now, that may change down the road. It is basically models from two different squads being tasked together for a mission need. You could have a Templar faction squad with 4 vehicles and 2 CAVs and use that as the reasoning, story-wise, and still play a legal force with a accurate back-story. CB
  20. Here is my version of the answer and I think it lines up with Dave. 1. Both Spartans can lock their respective Dictator and can then share both with either/both Centurions. The Spartans cannot share with each other and the Centurions can pick which enemy they want to shoot. Adding to what Dave said about multiple targets, if you shoot two different targets you receive a -1 to your combat roll for both shots. They both have to be in the same 180 degree arc and it applies to split actions as well. Say the Spartan locks the Dictator for the Centurion, but decides to shoot a closer Kahn. That attack will have a -1 to Combat Roll as it has multiple targets (see errata/faq The Rules p.11). CB
  21. One of the more frequent questions I get is how to roll for an attack. It can become confusing, especially for players learning the game, on how is the best way to determine the success or failure of an attack. It was always something I spent countless hours on and tried to find a happy medium. I was always fond of the mechanic we used in CAV1, both players rolled a die and added any modifiers that benefited them to the roll along with the weapons damage value (or the defenders armor). Higher roll won and the amount you rolled higher determined the damage. Now while that all seems simple, it could still be confusing a required both players to look at their values over and over and doubled the number of die rolled (multiples of the same weapon had to be rolled one at a time as well), increasing game time. SO when I was putting together CAVSO I wanted to get back to that style of fighting but without some of the baggage. That's where target points came in. They are effectively the others player "roll" you are trying to beat. With close assault being less frequent, I left the older style roll in place as I noted I thought it was cool. This presents problem 1. For a target point roll you add attack bonuses and subtract defense bonuses, but for close assault you both add numbers. A bit confusing at first needless to say. Problem 2: When rolling you can choose where to add or subtract. Different players do it differently. They both get to the same place but depending on how you do it, you can add it one way while subtracting the other way. Very confusing. Now as am getting the updated rules ready for inclusion in the Rules of Engagement book, its high time I get this cleaned up. What I have learned is what makes sense to me doesn't always translate well. Every set of rules suffers from it a bit here or there. When teaching new players I always do it this way: 1. Determine range band for base target point. I then subtract attacker mods from this number and then add defender mods giving me a single number. I like to use a d12 as a reminder of the number I'm rolling against. I roll one set of 2d6 for each attack, again so numbers don't get mixed up. Having various sets if differing colors is important here! 🙂 2. If its a miss I toss the roll aside. Once I have all my hits, I take them one at a time, adding my RAV and comparing to the defenders armor and check for damage. If I have multiple hits I keep a separate d6 to keep track (I never change a d12 damage dice till everything is done since the defender uses the original value throughout the attack). Of course the problem here is we are subtracting (+) SMs and adding (-) SMs. How to Fix in Update Here is my current thought process on how to make it easier (and with that being said its never going to be as easy as rolling a pile of d6s vs a 1-6, CAV requires a bit of mind work and I guess being old school I'm ok with that. If I wanted to just roll a hand full of d6s I would play Yahtzee!)... 1. The 10+ roll type is gone. This was a modified target point that always gave you a chance to succeed no matter what. Its a CAV2 holdover and I think it wastes game time (if there is a chance it seems everyone tries, every time). So that just leaves regular target point and opposed rolls. You can still go ahead and roll Strike Points without figuring them up. After a couple of games you get pretty good at knowing what has a chance and what doesn't. If its close enough either way then go ahead and figure it up. 2. SMs need to be reversed so that they line up with target points better. (-) ones make the number lower (so easier), (+) ones make it higher, so harder. For close assault, one side will just have to flip them to a (+). SMs that affect CA are a lot less and shouldn't be a problem (hopefully!). SO there you have my thoughts on it. Do you do it a different way that is easier? Let us know so new players can be less intimidated by the math and the numbers! CB
×
×
  • Create New...