Ran some sessions of FMA Skirmish at the club over the weekend. Each game was
two sides of 5 figs which was very manageable. One was a defense attack and
one was 'advance and hold'.
Several points came up 1) COMBAT move is mentioned at one point, but the rules
for it are missing.
:)
2) Single supression. The DSII players said they preferred the 'two
suppressions' system. As it stands you can't actually 'slap a figure
down' -
they will usually have at least one action. If that is the game intent then
fine but if people aren't really 'suppressed' in this game as they are in DSII
3) Isolation rules - we nbeed to have some small list of exceptions to
this
rule - one player in the defense/attack game wanted to deploy a lone
sniper
on the defensive side -as the rules stand that's not really feasible.
3) This is the major one - everyone feels there is a distinct imbalance
between Reaction and Overwatch fire. It was generally though they should have
if not actually the same 'cost' then approximately the same. As things stand
this is not the case. To elaborate :-
Reaction fire : Cost - 2 actions (one activation). Gain - 1 action (FIRE
action)
Overwatch fire : Cost - 1 action and a restriction on the other. Gain -
2 actions (AIM and FIRE actions).
People couldn't see why Overwatch fire gets the benefits of an aim action
whereas reaction fire doesn't. Furthermore as it stands Overwatch fire
'breaks' the 'fire once every so often' idea - it was felt that the rule
about firing should be changed so that once a figure has fired, it may not
fire again until it's next 'full' activation - a further restriction
upon the 'other' action in Overwatch that was felt would balance things a
little more. Also on this topic, there was confusion about exactly when things
are resolved. Reaction fire as stated happens between the targets first and
second action - does the same restriction apply to Overwatch or does it
have the further advantage that it can be imposed at any point in the targets
activation? It is feasible that a target could end it's first move in cover
or out of sight - negating reaction fire. If it then moves out of cover
in it's second action does it then become vulnerable to Overwatch fire but
*not*
Reaction fire? Why should that be?
So there you go. The core move and fire rules worked well and were quickly
picked up - even the detailed fire rules being easily followed. However
it
was felt that Overwatch fire was too 'strong' - I have to admit I
particularly got scragged by it due to the AIM benefit, but I also managed to
rule double 1's twice on armour rolls when I only needed 2's so I guess it
just wasn't my night.
TTFN
Jon
> Ran some sessions of FMA Skirmish at the club over the weekend. Each
Yep, sorry, this is one of the things I'd never really finalised. A combat
move action should be movement die (normally a D6 or D8 for most troops) roll
x 2. We'd already also had an idea (echoed by someone elses's comment a few
posts back, I think) of a "evading" or "stealthy" movement mode, where you
move just 1 x movement die roll but are a harder target. Will try to write
this up properly soon.
> 2) Single supression. The DSII players said they preferred the 'two
Interested in others' opinions on this one - originally we had no limit
on number of suppressions, but in testiing this meant that sometimes a figure
got loads of them piled on it at once and it got a bit silly. Question for
discussion: if you're under fire, are you more inhibited if you think more
people are firing at you, or doesn't it make much difference?
Then we tried a max of 2 suppressions, which works OK-ish, but then
thought we'd try going to one only. That way, you CAN pin someone down
completely but ONLY if they fail their first remove suppression test, which
gives good troops a bit more chance to keep moving. An alternative idea we had
was to allow up to 2 suppression chits, but to say that if you rolled better
than TWICE your motivation number, then you
removed 2 chits at once (eg: a Veteran/2 would need 3 or better on his
D10 to remove 1 supp chit, but 5 or better to remove 2 in one action).
Opinions, anyone?
> 3) Isolation rules - we nbeed to have some small list of exceptions to
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say the buying SNIPER skill
negates the isolation rules, and I agree that we may have to define a few
other exceptions to this as well.
> 3) This is the major one - everyone feels there is a distinct imbalance
Well, the idea was that Overwatch is a "prepared" action that you have to plan
for in advance (ie: in your last activation), while reaction fire is a
spur-of-the-moment, target of opportunity thing. However, this is what
playtesting is all about, and if an imbalance is showing up then we'll need to
sort it out. I had wondered about making Overwatching figures have to define a
target area or point (eg: put a "reticule" marker down on the table, and
anything that comes within (say) 6" of it is a valid overwatch target), but
the downside of this is that no player is going to deliberately move near one
of these markers if he can avoid it - but on second thoughts, isn't this
kind of area-denial and channelling of movement exactly what we want
this rule to do anyway....? Alternatives are a) writing down the overwatch aim
point (cumbersone, open to abuse and I don't like it) or b) giving figures an
overwatch ARC insted of an area or point, which starts to get us into
questions of figure facing, requires marks on figure bases etc.
Furthermore as it stands Overwatch fire
> 'breaks' the 'fire once every so often' idea - it was felt that the
Yes, this could work well.
> Also on this topic, there was confusion about exactly when things are
Good point - so, do we add the same restriction to overwatch, or remove
it from reaction fire?
> So there you go. The core move and fire rules worked well and were
> In a message dated 7/19/99 6:24:14 AM EST, jon@gzero.dungeon.com writes:
<< Question for discussion: if you're under fire, are you more inhibited if
you think more people are firing at you, or doesn't it make much difference?
>>
Being under fire brings on an even greater adrenaline rush than thinking you
MIGHT get under fire. The amount of fire incoming will not drive you deeper
into the dirt, you get just as deep as you can! The only thing that is likely
to keep you down (if you have survived the burst of fire, that is) is
SUSTAINED fire over your position. It's not quantity it is duration. I think
your single or double suppression is more than sufficient. If the fire has
been relieved and the grunt WANTS to move, he will - if only because
where he is has drawn fire, and where he might get to MIGHT not. It's a head
thing -
but instinctual not reasoned.
> On 19 Jul 99, at 12:26, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I would say you could have more suppression chits (although for ease of play I
would say 3 would probably be a maximum) but you would have to enforce the
'suppressed in the open' rules. Someone did ask about there being an
equivalent of the SGII (god knows why I was talking about DSII) rule about
being 'in position'. Or are we considering the Skirmish terrain is small
scale enough that the flat bits actually are flat..
> Well, the idea was that Overwatch is a "prepared" action that you have
It's a definite case. In one game it led to a sort of 'leapfrog' -
players would have half their squad on overwatch while the other moved. Now,
this *is* realistic as far as I know (although my experience of small team
warfare tactics is limited) but it did tend to bog the game down a bit. The
AIM part was the real bugbar though. That means using troops we had (standard
regulars, assault rifles, light flak) overwatching figures become very
dangerous over a wide area.
> I don't like it) or b) giving figures an overwatch ARC insted of an
Would people have problems with figure facing do you think? Anything in the
'front half' of a figure can be shot at. Presuming, of course, you allow
people to face figures any way they want to.
> Good point - so, do we add the same restriction to overwatch, or
I have no personal preference, but allowing 'any point' fire makes the game
more dangerous to individual troopers. It was just that as it was written,
Reaction fire had the restriction and Overwatch didn't. Given the feeling as
to the relative power of these two rules, this was something people were
concerned about.
> Glad to hear it generally worked well, Jon - the most important
To be honest, some did and some weren't sure. We had already run a 'nuns with
guns' tabletop merely using the SGII rules applied to individual figures
instead of units and people felt it was very similar to that, unsurprisingly.
There were also bits we didn't include - RL & explosives. Overall the
feeling was positive and that people would want to try it again but the
consensus was that I should at least raise the 'out of turn' fire issues.
> Thanks for the feedback,
TTFN
Jon
In message <l03010d00b3b8b49bb891@[194.176.206.221]>, Ground Zero Games
writes:
> I had wondered about making Overwatching figures have to define a
Or, a face down target marker and two face down dummy markers. This is what we
have done in SG2, but it does get cumbersome when you get multiple units going
on Overwatch waiting of the opposing forces to emerge from the woods.
> I had wondered about making Overwatching figures have to define a
How about including "arc of fire" counters on the FMA-Skirmish counter
sheet. A counter with a 90 degree arc indicated on it. When the player
declares that the figure is "going on overwatch" he places an overwatch
counter down showing the arc of fire that the model is covering.
To change the arc, he has to spend another action.
> I had wondered about making Overwatching figures have to define a
Hmm, I like this in principle, but I can see potential problems and
arguments arising from exact positioning of a half-inch counter and
trying to extend out from an arc printed on it. If all players are reasonable
about it then it could work well, but if they aren't then it could be a real
sticking point. Other opinions anyone?
> Adrian wrote:
> To change the arc, he has to spend another action.
> St. St. St. Jon wrote:
When I was writing up your rule for Overwatch and converting it to DSII, I did
this:
Place the OVERWATCH marker in the firing arc that the unit is overwatching.
When an enemy unit MOVES (not FIREs!) in this arc, the OVERWATCH unit may
(note that it doesn't have to!) interrupt the move and fire at the enemy unit.
Because I was thinking of DSII miniatures, I imagined the 90 degree arc as
being equivalent to the fixed mount firing arc (which in our games is the
front 90 degree arc). How about marking the overwatch counter an arrow, and
align with the figure's base? That forms the straight ahead line and players
have to agree
amongst themselves where the exact limits of +/- 45 degrees of straight
ahead are.
If they can't agree, let them roll the quality of the figure/s
being moved
and the firer/s, the higher roll getting the advantage.
The 90 degree marker sounds like a fair compromise. How best to implement is
as you point out likely to cause debate between players. Although probably
less than you might think. Consider the fairly loose interpretation that
occurs with SGII curently regarding where the 'centre' of a squad is for
targeting or measuring range bands or when it is/is not in cover.
We've adopted an unofficial house rule - the rule of Worst Consequence
that works really well and tends to take the sting out of most arguments. It
works along the lines of any 'arguable' decision opting for the absolute worst
outcome to effect any involved troops on the table; are these troops actually
in range band 2 or 3? Oh dear it's got to be range band 2! In LOS for the
shot? You bet!
But back to the angle; another option would be to mark a 'facing' on the base
but then players may not wish to deface the fine effort they've put into
flocking their figures base already. Similarly, mounting figures on a square
or hexagonal base to display facing would be good but not for those who would
need to rebase. So, in conclusion I think a 1" counter displaying the arc
would probably be best.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Big SNIP
> Hmm, I like this in principle, but I can see potential problems and
> The 90 degree marker sounds like a fair compromise. How best to
It'll have to be a half-inch counter like all the rest, as we can't
afford to have a new cutting forme made up for the counter sheets! Otherwise,
I agree this idea is probably the best yet, and we may well end up going with
it.
Jon (GZG)
> Owen G
Actually that other suggestion of an arrow and then measuring the angle from
that sounds pretty good.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Adrian Johnson wrote:
> How about including "arc of fire" counters on the FMA-Skirmish counter
given that the counters are square, they already have 90 degree angles on
them! place on in front of the figure, with a diagonal axis pointing in the
direction he's overwatching. the arc of fire is then described by the edges of
the counter:
left limit
.. aim line
. .
. .
+---+
| |
| |
+---+ . . . right limit
O
figure
mind you, i'm not that taken by the idea of the counters anyway - a tad
too vulnerable to tabletop entropy, i feel.
tom
This might be the best solution. Most of the time, one could just sight along
the edge of the counter. The rest of the time, a protractor might be required.
Donald Hosford
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Adrian Johnson wrote:
Jon asked:
> >2) Single supression. The DSII players said they preferred the 'two
Suppression is a very tricky subject, and exceptionally difficult to model.
There is a big difference between being under fire and being suppressed. A
couple of shots in your direction may make you take cover temporarily while
you judge the situation. Suppression only comes from a lot of incoming fire
into the whole area around you.
While under fire you will move more cautiously, from cover to cover. When
suppressed you do nothing other than try to wiggle into the ground.
Suppression is a purely temporary event. On the receiving end it's the total
knowledge that with the amount of lead currently flying around if you move out
of cover you are dead. As soon as the cause of the suppression stops so does
the suppression. Although suppression is likely to affect morale (the
opposition are controlling your options) it is not going to cause someone to
break and run away - the same instinct that is keeping your head down
will prevent that.
Usually only very experienced or motivated troops will attempt to break out
from suppression, and then it's just to find better cover.
My suggestion would be to just leave a suppression marker on a figure until
the suppressing unit changes target, at which point you remove the marker.
This could be modified by the motivation level of the troops so that greener
troops keep the markers on for longer. Only the most elite troops should get
the chance to remove the marker while the suppressive event continues.
A strange thing about suppression is that truly green troops often don't know
they are supposed to be suppressed. I suppose they haven't developed the
required survival instincts yet. This usually gets them killed of course.
Hope this helps a bit.
---