> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 08:40:53 -0500
> Stuff:
Yes, this is still a "squad" game and you are still asking if an INDIVIDUAL
can fire!! The game is really about the fire power elements in the squad (that
is the resource the squad leader is trained to use). In an NAC line squad for
instance, the squad leader has at his disposal a number of fire elements. So
many men armed
with assualt fires, one GMS/P, one SAW. He makes fire assignments
for the activation based on his elements, not the secondary weapons in his
grunts' possession. When he wants to put maximum fire on an
enemy squad he MAY have the GMS/P put aside his launcher for an
activation and use his assualt rifle, but the idea that he would fire both is
not in the cards.
If
> it was intended to be a Rambo guy with a big gun in his arms and a
Pictures
> of PA in the book look more intimidating than most of my models, some
But he can't he uses one weapon or the other for the activation -
really you are creating the unit of Rambo's!!!
If he had had to make a choice, I
> think I would have added his support weapon to the squad fire and then
Except
> I like the relationship of regular guys as Light PA, terminators as
I
> wouldn't give two weapons to any old trooper, just because they're
That particular fire "element"
For
> example (and sorry if I missed it in the rules--some things in their
No, don't do that. When we play SGII at the club we let the players choose to
split fire during activation, but squad fire (i.e. assualt rifle fire is ALL
done in one action at a given target. Then in the second action the SAW can
fire at a different target on his own.
Quit min/maxing and munching or you're doomed to
fire power games forever!!
> 2) I had a question about "in position" markers, but I found the
Combat moves are ONLY mandatory for close assualt. At all other times they are
strictly optional and quite a gamble. We force players (I believe its in the
rules somewhere) to pick up one of their squad counters and place it on the
position they want to reach by combat move. Then they get to die roll x2 to
see how far they go IN A STRAIGHT LINE!! from where they started to where the
counter was placed. If they end movement out in the open in sight of the
enemy, "c'est la guerre!!"
> 4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the target
Yes, and you most roll location for each hit (everyone could have aimed at the
same figure!) If the same figure is hit multiple times, make multiple impact
rolls vs. his armor
> I took some pictures. If they look OK and I can get a friend to scan
Thanks for all the comments. The only ones I was able to see before the game
were KRs, 'cause I posted late in the day, but thanks for all the others. I'll
try to respond to various people's comments in this post.
First, we did try it, and it was fun. I set it up very generically. I know
that scenario stuff will make it more interesting, but this was a sampling of
the rules, so everyone started at confident (I think next time I'll assume
that a generic starting value would be steady, or use the suggestion to choose
that level by quality). Both commanders were quality 1, all other sergeants 2.
I also set up the terrain. I explained the two sides to my wife, and she chose
the army she wanted, the Imperial Guard.
Space Marines: 2 squads of light, slow PA (leader, 2 marines, 1 support
marine), where the leader of the elite squad was the commander, the leader of
the veteran squad was a sergeant. 1 squad of heavy, slow PA (leader, 2
marines, 1 support (robot)).
Imperial Guard: 3 squads of partial armor infantry (leader, 5 troopers, 2
support), 1 squad of heavy, slow PA (3 "robots", 1 designated the leader).
So I had 12 guys, she had 27.
I setup the the terrain using GeoHex stuff on the kitchen table (4 full hexes,
plus some half hexes around some edges, with a stream going through 2 hexes
and a hill in one of the others. Two bridges across the stream.) Various woods
around. Total fit in a 2.5 foot diameter circle, I'd guess. Still looked like
a long way for the guys to march across the field, but I found the travel
movement rule during the 2nd or
3rd turn, and that sped up stuff. :-) We did not finish the game-it
got late, with all the explaining rules to her and looking up stuff myself.
But the summary was that everybody ran and got in cover, then nobody wanted to
use any actions to do anything but shoot. Using better scenarios would
definitely give us reason to come out and try
something. That's later. :-)
I had one Lt PA squad spend most of the game removing suppression and then
having it put back on. They were in woods, but had two squads which could
shoot at them, repeatedly because of the commander activating them. My heavy
PA squad was destroying her troops on the other side, though, and I think I
could have brought them into the side I was having trouble in after another
turn or two.
Stuff: Wow, the number of things you can do when your leader activates other
units! I see why KR suggested not taking support weapons with my
commander--he's really better off just being used for extra
activations. I'm still glad I didn't take specialists I don't know what to do
with yet, but neither of our commanders' units played any part in actual
firing. I guess I'm surprised that there isn't some sort of limitation, like
his activating a unit gives them one action, not an entire activation; or a
commander can't activate the same unit twice. But I guess that's what the
leaders are for.
The "robots" I'll call a support Heavy PA guy, since that's how I used them.
They're GW robot figs, but I don't usually care that much about what they're
intended to be. So I used them as the support guys for the heavy PA squad on
my side, and 3 of them made up her H PA squad.
We did take the rule that one of those guys could shoot one weapon in one
action, and the other in another action. For instance, mine added his small
arms fire into the squads during one action, then fired the support weapon
during the second action. I'd still like to know whether this is against the
letter of the rules, since the rule says you can't fire a "weapon" twice in an
activation. Is it against the spirit? If it was intended to be a Rambo guy
with a big gun in his arms and a small gun at his holster, I'd say yes. As a H
PA guy, I'm not sure. Pictures of PA in the book look more intimidating than
most of my models, some like little battlemechs. I'm not sure what they're
capable of, with all this stuff on them. This guy has a big gun on his head,
and another on his arm. My original question was could he add both to the
squad's fire, since that would not be using the same weapon twice. Then I
thought maybe I'd limit it and say no, but he could use them in different
actions, though now I think this is not really more limiting. Maybe it makes
more sense to say he could add both to squad fire or shoot his support weapon
at another target, not both. I'm not trying to break the spririt of the game,
but I'm not sure this (Heavy PA) guy isn't capable of using both. However, a
game note: I think this is one reason why we spent all our activations
shooting. He could add his regular firepower to squad firing, and his support
weapon in another action, and it was hard to pass up. If he had had to make a
choice, I think I would have added his support weapon to the squad fire and
then moved or done something else with the other action. Maybe, the squad I
have in mind was in hard cover, so maybe would have just stayed put.
The Space Marine army wasn't chosen as all PA because I thought it would win.
I just wanted to make armies from the minis I have. They were very obviously
vulnerable, and when I give them a healthy helping of opposition, Owen is
right that they take a lot of suppression. That's fine. However, sometimes I
view these guys as more like Star Wars stormtroopers, so maybe they'll turn
into Full Suit Light Armor. Except I like the relationship of regular guys as
Light PA, terminators as Heavy PA.
I hope it is clear that just because I'm using GW figures, I'm not a
teenage min-maxer munchkin fan-boy. (I'm a 33 year old min-maxer
munchkin fanboy :-) I'm using the figures because I've got them,
they're cheap (when used as I'm using them) for an interesting variety
of neat figs, and I like science-fiction stuff to look sorta far-out. I
wouldn't give two weapons to any old trooper, just because they're muscley,
but I did get some agreements that with a powered armor guy this might be
possible. I have not looked at the close assault rules yet, and I've heard PA
does well there. I still have trouble relating to close assault, rather than
shooting from a safer distance. (And yes,
I _am_ using GW figs. :-) I'm not using the PA because I think I can
always win with them. I hope to have several armies and switch off which ones
I'm using, and give the PA plenty of challenges.
Questions: 1) I'm not sure about just what the word "weapon" means in the rule
that no weapon may be fired twice. Does it mean a particular piece of metal,
in a particular guy's hands? Or does it mean a kind of weapon? For
example (and sorry if I missed it in the rules--some things in their are
spread out over several pages and I don't see them), can I split my small arms
fire into two actions? With the first meaning of weapon, I can put 2 guys'
weapons against one squad in one action, and 3 guys' weapons against another
squad in another action. With the meaning that "weapon" in this case means
their regular rifles as a kind of weapon, then they can only shoot that kind
of weapon in one action during their activation. Which is it?
2) I had a question about "in position" markers, but I found the answer.
:)
3) Do you make a decision about whether a move is normal or a combat move, or
does the situation (as judged by both players) always determine? Or both, in
that if the situation is obviously under fire you make a combat move, in other
situations you decide?
4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the target squad,
do the potential hits get applied more than once to those figures?
I took some pictures. If they look OK and I can get a friend to scan
> Questions:
In the main rules you can 'split' the support weapon off and fire it
separately if you wish. If you want to split your small arms fire I suspect
you would have to detach a group from the squad (making two mini squads) and
work your fire like that. There are rules for making detached groups.
Basically, your 'main' group would use one action to fire and the commander
would use the other action to activate the detached group, who could then fire
at a separate target. The main rules tend to imply that if a squad targets
something, they all shoot at it.
> 2) I had a question about "in position" markers, but I found the
Goodoh.
> 3) Do you make a decision about whether a move is normal or a combat
My group declares when they begin the action - you either say "I'm
moving this group" in which case it's normal 6" or whatever or you say "I'm
doing a combat move to that {thing} there" in which case you roll the dice.
> 4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the target
I don't know if this is official but it's a house rule of ours that yes you
can. Furthermore any wounded figure CAN take another hit from the same burst
of fire and if wounded again is considered dead. (We rule that wounded figures
cannot be targeted in subsequent bursts of fire).
TTFN
Jon
> Jonathan white wrote:
I get the impression that this is correct as well, but I agree with your use
of the word "imply". I'm not at all sure what it is intended to be.
> >3) Do you make a decision about whether a move is normal or a combat
But do you decide which it is going to be based completely on which you would
rather do, or does the situation determine which kind of move it is going to
be? In other words: Is a move possibly threatened by fire (I assume this is in
the judgement of the players) always a combat move, and is a move judged by
the players to not be threatened always a normal move? Or can you you just
pick which you want to do? Or do you always move a combat move under fire, but
can choose a combat move when you are not under fire? (Again, assuming players
have to judge what is under fire.) (I rolled a 1 and two 2s for my combat
moves.:)
> >4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the
Any other thoughts on the officialness of this?
Thanks!
> In message <35001F78.507C714B@avs.com>, Andy Skinner writes:
It is my understanding of the rules that the only time you are required to use
a particular style of movement is the combat move before CC.
> fire? (Again, assuming players have to judge what is under fire.) (I
Heh. I tend to use Combat Moves a lot, just because it feels like I might get
further...btw, I use 2dX instead of dX x 2. You get a nice bell curvey look
for your rolls.
> >4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the
I _almost_ brought my rules to work today because of this thread, but of
course, I didn't. My understanding of the rules is that since your wounds and
kills are allocated randomly, you can double up on an individual at any time,
not only when there are more hits than troops. I also consider this to be
fairly realistic.
KR, thanks for your responses. I do think you're interpreting what I say in a
certain way because of preconceived notions, whether they're based on the fact
I'm using GW figures, or some other reason. The questions I'm asking are based
on trying to figure out the rules, and I've had responses on the list of
people saying things sound possible, as well as people mentioning that the
rules aren't specific about things, or "imply" things. It's hard to figure out
rule by implication.
> Geo-Hex wrote:
The rules already cover stuff about individuals firing. He can add support to
the squad's fire, or he can fire it independently, if given an action to do
it. Just because we've mentioned the support guy, doesn't mean we're trying to
make it an individual game. I agree there are arguments to be made about
whether this can be done, but I don't think it is because I'm trying to
individualize it.
I'm eliminating one of the possible ways to handle this, because I agree that
he cannot add firepower to the squad while shooting at a different target. So
can he add both firepower and support to firing at one target? He's a guy in a
big metal suit, and for all I know he just has to point at them and push a
button. I don't think it is so out of the question, but I may end up making
him choose one or the other. I wonder again, though, that if the game is
intended to be generic, and there are
no points to min/max, and you make efforts to make sure it balances
either way, why does it matter? I could add another guy to my squad and get
the same firepower, and another guy to kill. So I may end up choosing whether
he adds support or regular firepower per activation, but I don't think it
breaks the game to have it work the other way.
> But he can't he uses one weapon or the other for the activation -
Looking at some of the powered armor pictures in SGII, they look like little
battlemechs. Having that guy push buttons inside his powered
armor doesn't seem as improbable as having a big-muscled guy juggle
weighty guns around.
> > 1) I'm not sure about just what the word "weapon" means in the rule
Is "element" defined somewhere? In a squad of leader, 3 troopers, and 1
support guy, are there 3 elements: leader, firepower, support weapon?
> For
Again, I'm just trying to understand the rules. It said no weapon may fire
more than once per activation, and I haven't found a good definition of what
is meant. This could have meant "the squad has 4 small arms weapons. No weapon
may fire twice, so two fire in one action, two in another." Isn't it a
legitimate question to ask what exactly "weapon" means? I'm still looking at
the squad, not the individuals, trying to figure out what resources a squad
has. If a guy gets shot, it changes the squad's firepower, so you can't say
I'm trying to make it an individual game for mentioning that there are N
weapons in the squad.
> Quit min/maxing and munching or you're doomed to
I'm not asking the question because I want to kill off all my opponents before
they get to shoot me, or try to win every time. I'm trying to figure out the
rules. The same rules will be used by both sides in my games, and we'll
probably be using different armies and switching off.
I was joking about the min/maxing and munchkin stuff. I really think
you're misinterpreting what I say because I play a GW game (Epic 40K) and have
GW figs.
> placed. If they end movement out in the open in sight of the enemy,
I had a bunch of these. :-) As I said one 1 and two 2s. And my Elite
guys failed a couple of communication rolls, too. Whoops! :-)
> > 4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the
Thanks. Really KR, I appreciate you responding. I just get the impression
you're reading my questions through a filter. Of course, you think I'm reading
the rules through a GW filter. Remember, I don't play 40K, and fire in Epic
40K is by detachment. I'm used to thinking in terms of fire by groups.
> ----------
> I get the impression that this is correct as well, but I agree
Actually you need to look at target priorities. And in the majority of cases
you will probably find that they would have to fire at the same target. The
exceptions might be if the detachment is closer to a different enemy unit.
This again limits to some degree the on table Godlike omniprescence.
Cheers,
> From: Andy Cowell[SMTP:cowell@icx.net]
Absolutely. And again the game resolves around the squads actions/fire
so the firer's unit is putting a quantity of fire into the area that the
target squad is occupying. So any body in the target area is just as likely to
cop rounds.
> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:46:04 -0500
> KR, thanks for your responses. I do think you're interpreting what I
No. According to the rules an individual can only fire once per activation,
not once per "action", therefore you have to choose where you'll utilize him.
He's a guy in a big metal suit, and for all I know he just has
> to point at them and push a button. I don't think it is so out of the
That may be, but we've abstracted that to allow for increased playability.
> > > 1) I'm not sure about just what the word "weapon" means in the
No. And once again this probably more of a playability issue. With our rules
we want you to get through an entire game each time you play.
With the first meaning of weapon, I
> > > can put 2 guys' weapons against one squad in one action, and 3
Look up the rules on detachments if you want to lay down this type of fire.
The rules allow you to do it, just not in the way you've mentioned. You have
to remember that the two "actions" you've mentioned are "gaming abstractions".
In real life I doubt a squad leader can know that the fire of half his men has
pinned the enemy and now he will get a morale loss by firing the other half!!
> >
> I was joking about the min/maxing and munchkin stuff. I really think
No, my objections to what you were saying are not influenced by my dislike of
GW, they are just another company getting it wrong, not the only one.
> > placed. If they end movement out in the open in sight of the enemy,
Good luck, and try to keep your playtest games very bland. Use identical sides
for a game and try to win by outwitting your
opponent. A lot of the fantasy and sci-fi rulesets on the market
today hide their inadequacies under the guise of the "differences" between the
two sides in the game. Jon has playtested these rules with identical forces to
try to achieve balance. Try it, you'll
see!!
KR
> andy
> Glover, Owen wrote:
Yep, turns out this is a lot clearer in the rules than I remembered--it
definitely says that a single figure can take more than one hit because of the
random allocation. So all the people who wrote saying they play
it as a house rule can keep on doing it. :-)
thanks,
> Glover, Owen wrote:
That helps, thanks. I was really trying to find out how to reach the same
conclusion everyone else was from the rules, and I still don't quite see how I
was supposed to get the correct definition of "weapon". I agree this principle
helps in the majority of cases.
I have a priority question, though I agree this is usually a judgement call
based on the situation. If you have two squads near you, but one nearer than
the other and in general more of a threat, what about after some shooting, and
the nearer squad has been suppressed pretty well (say 2 suppression markers).
Can you tell that a squad is suppressed, so that they don't seem to be such a
threat? I'd think not, and that you'd keep pounding them. What do you think?
Can your squad tell the nearer enemy isn't likely to shoot back soon and go on
to someone else? Of course, keeping them under suppression is a good thing,
too.
My view is that you simply state which type of movement (normal or combat) you
are going to make before doing so. You are not constrained by circumstances in
any way.
Mike Elliott, GZG
Andy Skinner <askinner@avs.com>
06/03/98 16:08
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Mike Elliott/UK/BULL)
Subject: Re: going to try SGII (long)
But do you decide which it is going to be based completely on which you would
rather do, or does the situation determine which kind of move it is going to
be? In other words: Is a move possibly threatened by fire (I assume this is in
the judgement of the players) always a combat move, and is a move judged by
the players to not be threatened always a normal move? Or can you you just
pick which you want to do? Or do you always move a combat move under fire, but
can choose a combat move when you are not under fire? (Again, assuming players
have to judge what is under fire.) (I rolled a 1 and two 2s for my combat
moves.:) subsequent bursts of fire). Any other thoughts on the officialness of
this?
Thanks! andy
First, let me apologize if I got over-defensive last week. I bought the
game because of the squad level, so wasn't surprised that that's what it was
about. But I didn't need to feel like you were gunning for me.
Second, customer service kudos to GeoHex. KR sent me a replacement for my
book, which had some smeared pages. I'll use my smeared copy as a loaner, to
get people interested.
> No. According to the rules an individual can only fire once per
OK, let me make this a suggestion, then, and leave it at that. When I read the
rules, I saw that a squad might have (for example) 4 rifles and 1 support
weapon. Then I read that no "weapon" may be fired more than once per
activation. Both the dividing fire question (and I did assume that if it was
allowed it would take another action, so it wasn't
something for nothing) and the power-armored guy firing both weapons
were me trying to figure out how a squad could use its resources, not firing a
weapon more than once per activation. I'd suggest a clarification to what
"weapon" means. I think my problem, rather than trying to use the guys as
individuals, was that I was abstracting the
squad stuff too much. :-)
I'm tending to agree with you now about the support weapon/small arms
guy, even though I think the powered armor guy does begin to be believable.
[about splitting fire]
> No. And once again this probably more of a playability issue. With
I'd also agree about playability. We ourselves didn't like that we got into
cover and then just sat and shot.
> Look up the rules on detachments if you want to lay down this type of
Not sure what you meant here. I certainly wasn't suggesting splitting fire so
I could roll the quality die twice against the same target! I haven't read
through the detached elements stuff much yet, so I'll take a look. I guess it
makes sense to me that, if they are going to shoot at something different,
they'd have to take some time first to tell everybody who they're supposed to
be shooting with and at.
Even though we didn't finish the first game, we (my wife, too) enjoyed it, and
could see some of what we want to be different.
I expect our games will:
*continue to use sides that differ somewhat, though some will be more similar
than others. The two most similar will probably be the old Imperial Guard
figures vs the new ones.
* not use any special characters
* not emphasize close assault (though I'm torn here, because I will want to
use it for my tyranids, and I do realize that it represents something
realistic in getting an enemy that's in cover)
I _might_ reduce the Space Marines to full light armor, not powered.
But I like the tacticals as light and the termies as heavy, so I'm not sure.
And when I get pictures of our battle, I'll put them on my web page.
> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 08:18:51 -0500
> First, let me apologize if I got over-defensive last week. I bought
Ah well, sometimes I get heavy handed - I don't mean to be, it just
comes out that way!!
> Second, customer service kudos to GeoHex. KR sent me a replacement
Hmm, yeah, could be....
> I'm tending to agree with you now about the support weapon/small arms
I'll give you that one, especially if you want to run a support guy as an
individual figure.
> [about splitting fire]
Ah, well that's something that someone in one of my demo games wanted to do.
He had lost his specialists due to fire and wanted to fire twice in a turn.
After he spent the action to form the detachment I let him do it.
I
> haven't read through the detached elements stuff much yet, so I'll
Try a sniper sometime, deadly, especially if handled properly.
> * not emphasize close assault (though I'm torn here, because I will
I ran a game of Starship Troopers and the bugs (naturally) could ONLY
close assault - bloody, just like the movie!! But its true that if
you try to emphasize close assault you could get some weird results. A
scenario that involves the use and fire and perhaps a close assault to take
the position is likely to be more interesting (and challenging) to play.
> I _might_ reduce the Space Marines to full light armor, not powered.
I like that you had the heavies as slow power armor. It makes for a more
interesting force composition.
> And when I get pictures of our battle, I'll put them on my web page.
Great! I'll look forward to seeing them.
KR
> ----------
Well, another good question. You could ask similarly about a squad that has
dropeed its CL to BROKEN. Obviously can't fire back at you unless fired at, so
can we ignore it? We actually had this situation last night. Again, playing by
the spirit of the rules we determined that our squad would not be able to tell
the difference between a steady CO squad and a suppressed or BR squad. If the
squad was enough of a threat to attract your fire in the first place and it
hasn't moved away from you then you would be bound to continue engaging it
until some other enemy unit became a greater threat or if perhaps the Pl
Leader gave specific orders to direct fire elsewhere.
Reasonable?
> Glover, Owen wrote:
[snip my question about whether you could tell if a squad was
suppressed, and thus ignore it for a turn]
> Well, another good question. You could ask similarly about a squad
I think so. I'd say if you were pretty sure you had given it a good pounding,
and there was another squad of similar threat, it would make sense to lower
the first one's priority a bit. But I'll wait and see if it comes up.
Tom Barclay responded and pointed out that in reality you might not even know
when you had taken out the last man in a squad. So you might
actually keep shooting at an empty clump of trees. :-) I thought that
sounded like an interesting game, where you'd hit a spot really hard, hoping
to get rid of the opposition there, and then sprint to where you were going,
hoping you were right. But I don't think I want to play the
necessary complications at this point. :-)
Thanks,
> Geo-Hex wrote:
Oh, great. Now that I'm about to agree with him, he says he gives it to
me. :-) I only want to use one as support for the Marine heavy squad,
but the IG doesn't have powered armor to go along with them, so I was going to
put them in a squad by themselves. But this is the part I'm starting to agree
with you on, that I don't want to overdo those guys and have them shooting all
over the place.
> Try a sniper sometime, deadly, especially if handled properly.
Yeah, that's one of the things I'm nervous about. We'll see. I don't yet feel
a need for snipers, so I won't use 'em until I think they'll add something
specific.
> > I _might_ reduce the Space Marines to full light armor, not powered.
Actually, they were all slow power armor. I'm still thinking about
making what were light PA be full-suit light armor, and that's mostly
because I think of them as Star Wars stormtroopers. But then I'd end up with
termies as light PA, and that doesn't look right. So I think I'll leave 'em as
is.
Thanks again for comments.