that's a lot of Mc's - are you double Scots?

I tend to play that a CAP can be CAP'd which adds an interesting tactical element to the air game. Eg. you can try and lure his CAP out with a ground attack - he either has to CAP, and miss the thing he's really trying to protect against (a ground assault for eg), or your ground attack has a free run. I agree that CAPing can burn an activation, but it also means you can't use that activation for something potentially useful, and 300pts of nightwings is a lot to burn for nothing. CAPing CAP is one of those things that needs to come up in the 5min warmup. I like it, it's fun, but others hate it

as for Ginger's suggestion I'd say no, they're not on the board so until they take an action to move onto the board, like CAPing a bomber run, they're off-limits. otherwise air transports would be open game and that'd be no fun at all.

Hi Kealios, seems we share a scots ancestry

mattthemuppet I agree that CAPing CAP is something that others play, but it can get complicated very rapidly. My query was by way of an idle suggestion that would achieve a similar result while keeping things (relatively) simple. Effectively it splits up the combat into two phases, and may also provide the bombers / air transports with better protection.

I am not so sure that this would make Air transports "open game", could you explain further?

It is rather amusing that most of us know most of each others' real names, yet mix and match with our "stage" names. As this proves, hillarity ensues.

I've tried to get people to call me Ratty in real life.. and in quite a few circles they do.. It saves all of the multiple Alex problems.

_________________

My Photobucket

Hi Ginger, I might have been misinterpreting what you said, but it sounded like you were proposing to allow interception of planes at the board edge but off board, hence the "open game" comment. You might need to give a blow by blow example as I don't think I really understand your suggestion

Considering the CAP to be on-table so they can be 'intercepted' allows two situations -

• The interceptors can be placed in front of the CAP forcing a fight between them and the interceptors (which cannot move through enemy air ZoC).
• The interceptors are put to one side of the CAP, allowing the CAP aircraft to move. This allows them to choose to use up their CAP to reposition relative to the interceptors, or let the interceptors have a free shot, retaining the CAP for later use (either of which will generally work out as it does currently).

While this would generally provide the same results as CAPing CAP, it does so by separating the air combat into two steps which would remove some of the potential complications that can result when more than three air formations have a fight.

For anyone who has played MMOs for any length of time knows, separating screen names/handles/characters and real life names is always a challenge If I could get people to call me Kealios IRL I'd be a happy man!

Yes, Im Scottish in heritage but very Californian You should see me in my kilt!

I can see CAPing the CAP getting very complicated, particularly once you have multiple CAPs up, but it strikes me as a much more interesting way to play. For one thing, the function of many fighters is to escort the bombers. The whole point is to intercept the people coming to kill your bombers. Of course, with the Thunderbolt on Marauder fights I saw in my last game with Gavin (sorry, I think I knew you before you adopted Kealios!), the Marauders were tearing up the T-bolts before they even got a chance to shoot...

Who has played that way, and what were the results?

We sometimes play it in our group (Depends if we're playtesting a list or not generally) and it tends to work fine.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

We do also play that it is possible to CAP CAP. It really works fine and is not that complicated most of the time and adds some new possibilities.

Yea, its crazy how Marauders can tear up Thunderbolts coming in on their 6, and with a 6+ save, a single hit will likely kill one! With 2 shots at 5+, you're almost guaranteed 1 hit at 15cm. Maybe the fighter shouldnt be sneaking in that close, but sometimes you just have to...

Oh, and "Gavin" is just fine, as long as Ginger doesnt get confused

Played it that way for years no problem. It's honestly a bit silly without it I think.

All the objections I've seen tend to be theoretical abstractions, rather than significant problems. Even in 10k+ a side games with multiple aircraft formations intercepting each other we've never had problems, let alone the far more typical tournament games of 3-5K.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Agreed, the most we ever had was the CAPing of a CAPing of a CAPing of a CAP on some bombers in a 2v2. Took a couple of seconds to figure out what was happening but then lots of aircraft blew up and everyone was happy.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

don't forget, each player can only have 1 aircraft fm on CAP at any one time, so the worst it can get is:

>ground flak vs GA>ground attack (GA) plane flak vs CAP1>CAP1 plane flak vs CAP2>ground flak vs CAP2>CAP2 intercept attack vs CAP1>CAP1 intercept vs GA planes

or was that:
>ground flak vs GA>ground flak vs CAP2>ground attack (GA) plane flak vs CAP1>CAP1 plane flak vs CAP2>CAP2 intercept attack vs CAP1>CAP1 intercept vs GA planes

where was I?

You can put as many formations on CAP as you like.

Only one may intercept any given formation, so there is very limited utility and, in my experience, pretty rare unless both sides are air-heavy.

However, if you're allowing CAP of CAP, then there is a use for multiple formations at the ready.