Tactical Command | View topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 22 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Aircraft rules

NOVAGUARD

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:32 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:37 pm
Posts: 406

i think the point was that it is allowed to happen.... but expect long and complicated furball style fights

_________________
Legio Nova guard: Finished
legio Storm lords: built
legio warp runners: un built
skitari: built
Eldar: in boxes
Orks: built, gargants painted
Ultra marines: 5 companies
Thousand sones: 5 companies (unpainted)

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:34 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(NOVAGUARD @ Jan. 06 2008,14:32)

QUOTE

but expect long and complicated furball style fights

"Long and complicated"?

How many squadrons of CAPing fighters are people normally using? I've seen, max, two squadrons per side. Of course, Imperial and Orks forces could take six 150 point Sqaudrons in 3000 points, but has anyone ever actually seen that?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:40 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I've always allowed CAP'ing Intercept missions, it causes absolutely no problems.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

NOVAGUARD

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:24 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:37 pm
Posts: 406

for number of fighters in play, once in a multi player battle, (the one out the back of the rule book actually) we had a six squadron fur ball spring up on turn two!

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:41 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

The point under consideration here is the level of complexity (and some quirky situations) this can produce - but these are rare. For 90% + of situations it should be fine. But you do have some extra considerations like, whether each formation may only be "CAPed" once, the order / legitimacy of some targets etc - which is why this comes with a "health warning" that it can get very complex even with just 4 formations.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:25 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 06 2008,15:40)

QUOTE

I've always allowed CAP'ing Intercept missions, it causes absolutely no problems.

Yes same.

IIRC the most I've seen in a dogfight were 5 formations:

Landing Craft
CAP'd by Nightwings
CAP'd by Thunderbolts
CAP'd by Phoenix
CAP'd by Thunderbolts

Worked out ok (and the Landingcraft took a critical and it was bascially game over).

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

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:02 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

What that CAPing of intercepts lead to chains??

I'll have a crack at answering...

What a CAPing squadron is doing is intercepting once it goes for an enemy squadron. Prior to that it is waiting on combat air patrol for something worth intercepting to show up. Once it activates it is no longer patrolling but intercepting.

However the terminology as written you find confusing - is that the point? That may just be a translation thing because I've never heard of anyone having problems with it before (though I can see how it could)?

I suppose you could write it "as each CAPing squadron is CAPed in turn" but the language starts getting a bit awkward.

Does that explanation help or just make things worse?

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

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:17 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Yes exactly. But just in the way the English language is used, from a descriptive non-rules perspective (like if it wasn't a game with rules but a story or novel) what the planes are actually doing when they activate on CAP is 'flying to intercept' other planes.

If this causes confusion for people it may be a problem with the choice of how this is worded though. Is it really a problem though? This is just a descriptive text box with house rule suggestion at the moment.

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

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:04 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Jan. 07 2008,08:52)

QUOTE

I'll try to draft a text for it in the evening.

Ok sounds good. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

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

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Aircraft rules

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:24 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

I think Hena's point is that both Ground Attack and Intercept are basically "fly in one formation and attack one target." CAP introduces the exact same complexities in either situation as it would be one CAP attacking one activating formation - no additional contingencies like CAPing CAP.

I don't see a reason it would cause problems to CAP intercept.

_________________
Neal

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 22 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Aircraft rules

Who is online