I know some of these questions have been discussed before, but I can't
remember the answer.
1) Is moving the only way to remove Under Fire Chits? I couldn't find anywhere
that said they were removed after 1 turn of a unit not being fired upon.
2) Does a required retreat from a close assault count as the activation for
the retreating unit? How do you work dismounted infantry getting
back into their vehicles to retreat? Can an assaulting unit follow-up,
even if the retreating unit is now out of the 6" range (mounting in vehicles &
dashing off)?
3) Can Powered Armor elements be purchased as specialty teams (ie, a
GMS/L PA element)?
4) How do you work IAVRs firing at a vehicle with APFC & Reactive armor?
Reactive armor allows only Red chits & APFC allows only Yellow.
5) For clarification, do all specialty chits count against artillery targets?
That's it for now.
Thanks,
> 1) Is moving the only way to remove Under Fire Chits? I couldn't find
I think yes. Because you take cover when you are under fire, and you have to
move to get up and get going again.
> 2) Does a required retreat from a close assault count as the activation
> for the retreating unit? How do you work dismounted infantry getting
> even if the retreating unit is now out of the 6" range (mounting in
No on the first part. Good question on the second! ;) And I think
the
rulebook mentioned the followup part - yes, you can pursue, but I'm
pretty sure it limited how far you could pursue.
> 3) Can Powered Armor elements be purchased as specialty teams (ie, a
I don't see why not.
> 4) How do you work IAVRs firing at a vehicle with APFC & Reactive
IAVR's are ineffective against such a defense (that's the way we played).
Alternatively, you could draw the chits anyway, hoping for specialty chits.
> 5) For clarification, do all specialty chits count against artillery
Yes, they do - pretty sure that was mentioned in the rules (but in a
strange place, like an example or something.
Hope that helps!
> I know some of these questions have been discussed before, but I can't
> 1) Is moving the only way to remove Under Fire Chits? I couldn't find
Under Fire markers are removed at the end of a unit's activation. See p.19
(top of col 1) "Once the whole unit has performed... then remove any UNDER
FIRE markers".
> 2) Does a required retreat from a close assault count as the activation
> for the retreating unit? How do you work dismounted infantry getting
A retreat from a close assault does not count as an activation. Troops cannot
mount up during such a retreat. They will have to wait for their own
activation to do so.
> 3) Can Powered Armor elements be purchased as specialty teams (ie, a
Yes. A PA element carrying a GMS/L would cost 40 points + cost of the
GMS/L.
> 4) How do you work IAVRs firing at a vehicle with APFC & Reactive
The APFCs take precedence, so onky Yellow chits count. (i.e you don't get any
bonus for having Reactive Armour as well).
> 5) For clarification, do all specialty chits count against artillery
Yes.
> That's it for now.
> Thanks,
My pleasure,
Yet more questions:
On the chit validity chart, most vehicle weapons are given chit validities for
infantry targets. These do not correspond with the validities (or even number
or chits drawn) listed under 'Vehicle weapons
against infantry'.
Which ones do I use?
Confused as usual,
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:59:04 +0200 (MET DST) Oerjan Ohlson
> <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se> writes:
> [quoted text omitted]
the "vehicle weapons fire against infantry" tells how many chits to draw,
while the Valid Chits table tells which ones count
> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Paul A Neher wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:59:04 +0200 (MET DST) Oerjan Ohlson
No. These two sections give contradictory info on chit validity - the
vwfai section claims that I should use the same validity as for infantry
weapons. Which is correct?
This was answered by Mike Elliott a while ago, and he said it was the first
erratum for DSII. I can't find that message, though. It was from a long time
ago. I think he pretty much said use the chart for everything the chart
specifies. Anything
it doesn't cover, use the rules in the text. Conflicts--use
the chart. That meant when firing at infantry with weapons you don't take
cover into account. I think you usually use Yellow, though I think it depended
on the weapon. I don't have the rules with me, so I'm a bit vague, but I'm
sure the chart was the correct version. I kinda liked the text rules myself,
especially using the cover rules. He mainly didn't want vehicle weapons to
very useful against infantry.
But he's on this list, so I'm sure he can clarify.
andy
----------
From: owner-ftgzg-l[SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 1996 12:19 PM
To: FTGZG-L
Subject: Re: DSII: More questions
> >On the chit validity chart, most vehicle weapons are given chit
Ok... I've been looking over this and here's what I have come up with... you
tell me if I'm full of crap or not:
Take what I said before, but temper it with the following (see pg. 33,): in
the open: red & Yellow soft cover: red
Dug in/urban: yellow
I see your point. Personally, I would follow the weapons chart for validity,
follow the VWFAI for number of chits, and forget the "note"" that seams thrown
in as an afterthought. Just a thought...
Paul
> >On the chit validity chart, most vehicle weapons are given chit
Ok... I've been looking over this and here's what I have come up with... you
tell me if I'm full of crap or not:
Take what I said before, but temper it with the following (see pg. 33,): in
the open: red & Yellow soft cover: red
Dug in/urban: yellow
I see your point. Personally, I would follow the weapons chart for validity,
follow the VWFAI for number of chits, and forget the "note"" that seams thrown
in as an afterthought. Just a thought...
Date sent: 26-JUN-1996 12:34:42
> This was answered by Mike Elliott a while ago, and he said it
> But he's on this list, so I'm sure he can clarify.
> andy
His mail has been playing silly buggers recently, so don't hold your breath.
---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
---------------------------
From: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk at SMTPGATE
Date: 6/26/96 12:35PM
*To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk at SMTPGATE
*cc: A.Delafield@bolton.ac.uk at SMTPGATE
Subject: RE: DSII: More questions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Text item:
> But he's [Mike Elliot] on this list, so I'm sure he can clarify.
> His mail has been playing silly buggers recently, so don't hold
"Silly Buggers", is that another FMA game that Mike is developing? Or is it
some new PBeM version of DSII? 8-p
Thanks, Nils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nils_A_Hedglin@ccm.fm.intel.com
I am Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use and may be ignored unless
there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RE: DSII: More questions
Message-ID: <009A46E4.71D57179.35@basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk>
CC: A.Delafield@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Reply-To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
From: Adam Delafield <A.Delafield@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:35:38 +0100
Received: by basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk (MX V4.2 VAX) id 35; Wed, 26 Jun 1996
12:35:40 +0100
Sender: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk
Errors-To: owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk
Warnings-To: <>
X-ListName: Full Thrust Combat Game Mailing list <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Received: from basil.acs.bolton.ac.uk by calliope.fm.intel.com
(8.7.4/10.0i); We
d, 26 Jun 1996 11:54:16 GMT Received: from calliope.fm.intel.com
(calliope.fm.intel.com
[132.233.247.7]) by
fmmail.fm.intel.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA24074 for
> "Silly Buggers", is that another FMA game that Mike is developing? Or
Nope. It's a new game from Microsoft, which takes all the available memory
from the computer (which has to be the fastest one
available, anyway. The game has a built-in science emulator, which
estimates, based on the date, how fast a computer it is possible to build, and
refuses to work at all unless your machine achieves this speed), and then runs
a game very similar to, but not entirely like, Worm. If you want it with
sound, you'll run out of memory.
/GNiko
-who's frustrated after having actually tried to play Civilization II
thorugh Windows
-who's also frustrated at not getting his .sig to work...