FMA

Zero G rules? (From a vacuum head.:)

Also, where does the x2 armour modifier come from?

> Zero G rules? (From a vacuum head. :)

Patience is a virtue...... (though as I'm just now reading Luna Marine (Ian
Douglas, aka William H. Keith Jnr.), you can certainly expect some

In reply to a couple of recent comments about FMA Skirmish. I had the
unfortunate responsibility for Tom's bad experience. We noted a couple of
things:

1) The scenario had some flaws. (I don't like free for alls, and
apparently this situation was poorly thought out - it wasn't a free for
all, but there was no mutual support suggested). The figures couldn't support
each other.

2) Our variant, which I think models some aspects of close combat well, makes
for a less amusing game in a board unconstrained by thick cover or lots of
urban density. The tactics people are used to using in games involve doing
more than hunkering down in cover at the far edge of the board and shooting.
But because it is a reasonable representation of
close in action, engagements of a target in the open at 30-40m with a
SAW will tend to generate either lots of suppression or casualties. The
grenade kills were in part due to bad luck (one of the players got a
grenade into three of my guys that were standing in the open - less than
a 8m separation standing.... they should have died and mostly did) or bad
tactics. But it is a significantly less forgiving game than SG2 in the sense
that you have a small number of units who go to dead or hors de combat when
hit (unlike SG2 where a unit has some resilience due to being made of more
than one guy) and at the ranges you deal with, grenades (even with a moderate
20m max area of effect) are pretty lethal to exposed targets. Ultimately, in
order for FMA to seem useful, it probably has to be run indoors, in a space
ship (a la Space Hulk), or in
a jungle/dense woods. Otherwise, you'd engage at ranges exceeding the
FMA boardsize (like out at SG2 ranges) and thus it makes sense to use that
system. Almost everything in FMA Skirmish is a close assault (more or less).

3) FWIW, for those who might be evaluating it based on our comments, keep in
mind the following thing: I tried to vary the rules of fill in blanks using
ideas from SG2 plus ideas from real (as well researched as I can get) data. In
real life, grenades can kill people at long distances (low odds though), and
they tend to kill anyone in a standing
pose with no cover nearby - this translates to a deadly weapon in FMA
terms. Grenade deviations are somewhat dangerous, but due to burst radius,
they tend to be still a threat to the target unit. The solution to employing
grenades as a defender is solid cover like trenches or a wall, and the
solution to employing them as an attacker is throwing them over a wall or
through a window and getting prone. In the abscense of cover, having a low
target profile (being prone) is the answer. From the "gamers" PoV, grenades
with large burst radii and deviations less than that radius used at range on
targets in the open are horrific. They kill people, and they thwart a lot of
tactics. Those who are more used to games where movement is in the ballpark of
weapons range, and attacks are not that lethal, a "realistic" variety of FMA
is a nasty experience
- tactics in this variant of FMA absolutely REQUIRE that you 1) use
cover, 2) advance while being supported in bounds (Overwatch, use of cover at
the end of moves) and 3) suppress the enemy before closing with them (to
prevent grenade and SAW attacks as you advance). Manoevre in the open is
lethal. An unsupported figure attacked by multiple figures is as good as dead.
Grenades against guys in the open are quite a threat. In short, it isn't very
forgiving. And in a less than congested board, it makes little sense for the
forces to even close to board edges without first having done a lot of fire at
longer (SG2) ranges.

So what does this tell me? 1. FMA (as I have tried it) works pretty well in
close terrain (buildings, urban areas, etc). I think in general, one should
have a thickly terrained board to allow maneovre under cover, closing actions,
no LoS, no spots, etc. - this will be the niche for FMA - otherwise
probably fights should start out at SG2 ranges and use that system. FMA should
be for forest or underground or on ship or urban battles where SG2 granularity
is insufficient to represent the type of fighting that occurs. (Which is, if
you note how close assaults in SG2 are resolved, pretty unforgiving too!).

2. Spotting (a key factor in RL) is vital or explosives become very very
awful. Forcing people to spot and operating on congested boards where LoS is
broken frequently helps to limit fire and grenade activity.

3. This variant is unforgiving - if you don't use good supporting
tactics (and by that I mean suppressing the enemy before you advance on them,
and always having a moving unit covered by one or more unmoving
ready overwatching units) - the slippery slope can quickly go
precipitous and you can have an unfun experience. This is of course not aided
if the scenario or board aren't set up well. Overall, just more thought and
care needs to be excercised at all levels by GM and player. Conversely, I
think good tactics can prevail in this as in most other environments.

4. Isolation needs some thought. If we assume that all modern troopies have
radio links, just because I can't see Jim Bob 20m away from me doesn't mean I
can't hear him and what he's doing. We ran into another situation of interest:
Billy Bob Green Troop reactivated by Lt. 12" away.... and successfully rolled
reactivation. And now Billy Bob tests for isolation? He isn't isolated. He's
just had specific instruction and comms with his leader! And being close
together so your Sgt. can whisper
to you means you are in Grenade (for the fantasy crowd - Fireball)
formation. One suggestion we had was for something like 2*quality in LoS or
1*quality outside of LoS. And if you are activated by a transfer
command, you don't have to check isolation because you are 'in-contact'.

Some will say that a game with movement rates in the 6-10" category
should not have grenades exploding over 12" r. (24m r) or autofire weapons
that can hit multiple targets or pin multiple times. I guess I
have an aversion to Gorka Morka-esque games where a firearm is less
dangerous that a stiff kick. Modern close combat is dangerous, not very
forgiving, and punishes the incautious. So I prefer a game where this is
reflected, but obviously this is fun only where the scenario and the terrain
allow the players to do something (other than just go prone, find cover, and
fire at the opponent until he is dead). So many folk will no doubt be happy
with a 6" burst radius on a grenade, and limited autofire capabilities. YMMV.

I've learned now where FMA fits in my GZGverse - in the Space Hulk
battles against aliens on a large ship, in the tooth-to-tooth battles in
a mine complex, in building clearing, in the constricted jungles of a
garden world - all places it works well. Where spotting is a key factor
in who and when you engage, and people can spread out enough to make grenades
only a moderate threat.

Anyway, better luck next time I'm thinking. Even a rough day produces some
lessons!

:)

Also refers to Jon Tuffley's system of using opposed die rolls to resolve
combat.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
-----

> -----Original Message-----

***
Also refers to Jon Tuffley's system of using opposed die rolls to resolve
combat.

-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/

> Also refers to Jon Tuffley's system of using opposed die rolls

true, didn't JT name the dice system *after* the Full Metal Anorak column in
Ragnarok? Thats where I first saw the term.

> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 devans@uneb.edu wrote:

> Sidebar, please note that Jon didn't INVENT opposed die rolls, as a

This sounds familiar... I was setting up a game at our gaming club's
meeting last Sunday - Fantasy Rules!, with 15mm figs from various
companies - and one of the local GW players wanders by - this guy also
works at the local GW store.

Turns out this prat is one of those "GW Is The One True Gaming Company,
And The Font of All Creativity" types - he can't look at a single mini
in
my boxes without figuring it to be a rip-off of some GW product... Then
this prat starts telling, with grisly relish, various unlikely stories of GW's
legal trashing of, it seems, every other game company in the world.

My gaming friends wonder why I dislike GW so much...

Can anyone tell me the current status of the FMA rules and is
their a synopsis of the discussions/decisions that went on a while
back.

Hi, I'd like to know who to petition for a copy of the beta FMA rules. I am a
Star Grunt II player and I am interested in the science fiction version as
well as the fantasy version.

Sent (Just so he doesn't get 30 copies).

Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[DitD] Captain Puppilier

> -----Original Message-----
 I
> am

> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----

Hello listers,

I just got back from the 'con where I played two games using the FMA system. I
know FMA is under development and that there is a testers
lists -- what I'd like to know is if it's possible to get a semi-recent
copy of the rules? It doesn't have to be the latest and greatest by any
stretch of the imagination. Just somewhat recent.

Damo

> what I'd like to know is if it's possible to get a semi->recent copy of

Wouldn't we all!

Go on Jon, when can we see FMA beta?

> On Sunday 23 February 2003 02:03 pm, Richard Kirke wrote:

  Appologies for being out of the loop - but what's FMA?

> > Go on Jon, when can we see FMA beta?

Ah, now that would be too easy. First you have to fill out form 593b in
triplicate.

It's actually, if I recall correctly, Full Metal Anorak. Though it's been a
while since I followed the list properly. So saying, I do still have the
originals that were posted many moons ago.

> Ah, now that would be too easy. First you have to fill out form 593b in

Give me the forms, where do I sign...

FMA is GZG's soon(ish) to be published low level skirmish game. It is still in
the testing stages, and I am not on the playtesting list, about which I am
slightly upset. Not for any good reason, other that the fact I can't play it
yet

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:16:22 -0800, Corey Saltiel <corey@axcelerant.com>
wrote:

> Appologies for being out of the loop - but what's FMA?

FMA stands for "Full Metal Anorak". An anorak is a type of raincoat thingie
that is stereotypically associated with British gamer geeks. FMA is the name
of the opposed die roll system found in Stargrunt II.

When people here talk about FMA as a separate item, they are probably talking
about what's more accurately called FMAS on the playtest list, or "FMA
Skirmish". This is a new game that Jon's been working on for a few years. Each
figure represents one person, but the scale is at 1" = 2 metres.

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:48:58 -0500, Damond Walker
<dwalker@syncreticsoft.com> wrote:

> I know FMA is under development and that there is a testers lists --

It's not likely. The "current version" wasn't sent out to us on the playtest
list. There's a version Jon put out about two years ago, with amendments from
a couple of e-mails from Jon. So, any "current version" has been
compiled personally by us on the mailing list.

I suspect that Jon won't release anything here yet. We're waiting for the
latest manuscript for FMAS on the playtest list. There are some new mechanics
that haven't been completely tested, and so I would be very surprised if Jon
released it over here...

> It's not likely. The "current version" wasn't sent out to us on the

Which begs the question -- who do you have to talk to in order to get a
copy of the "compiled" version? Should I send an email to Jon asking to join
the test list first?

Damond

> I just got back from the 'con where I played two games using the FMA

Unless JonT has been really busy this weekend, there is no compiled beta;
there is the alpha (which is in the main list's archives somewhere, I think)
plus a lot of complications suggested by the test list. I'd bet that the
different scenarios from this weekend each used different mechanics for one
thing or another.

> Unless JonT has been really busy this weekend, there is no compiled

The common thread between the two FMA based games I played this year was
the D4-D12 progression which works very neatly.  Other than that each
game had it's own little twist or addition.

As to getting a version of FMA the list archives are your buddy. I managed to
find a five part post by Jon from 1999. It's old but it will have to do for
the time being.:)

Damond