Hello all,
For those of you that I met at ECC, it was a pleasure. I had a great time!
I enjoyed everything that I played this weekend. As it was my first GZG con, I
made it a point to get into all of the playtest games that I could. I was in
the DS3 and FT3 playtests, as well as an FMAS game.
The FMAS game that I played in (Zombie Survival, Jerry Acord) was excellent. I
really liked both the scenario and the rules, and kudos to him for putting it
together Now that I am home and have had some time to think, I'd like to adopt
those rules in house and use them for a variety of periods. I think they're
well suited and with some slight modifications can be made to fit just about
anything.
I was able to grab the playtest rules from 1999 in the list archives. They are
very similar to the rules Jerry used at the con. However, I have some issues
and was wondering how others were handling them or if they have been addressed
in later playtest rules.
The rules are somewhat vague about the effect of a wound. Jerry's rules
reflected a wound as a loss of an action per activation with the second wound
being a kill. Is this the way others are treating it as well?
Has anyone put together any morale rules for FMAS yet? The 1999 rules allow
for suppression, but in some cases there really needs to be something scary
enough to have a figure turn tail and run.
Is there anything that identifies what actions can be combined per activation?
Each figure can make two actions per turn, but which ones can be combined? Can
they make two movement actions, two firing actions, or two close combat
actions?
Finally, the close combat rules probably need some tweaking. A single opponent
vs. multiple opponents is handles as a series of one on one fights, each
beginning and ending within a single figure's activation. I would think that
having multiple opponents would put a single figure at a significant
disadvantage... more so than the 1999 rules allow for. Has this been changed
in later rules, or has someone come up with something on their own to modify
it?
Once again, I had a great time at the con and look forward to next year. I'd
like to get the FMAS system straight in my mind and run something next year. I
was thinking it would be especially fun to modify it for the WWI period and do
some trench fighting. At the very least, it would be more fun than *actual*
trench fighting:)
From: "Derek A. Rogillio" <derek@rogillio.net>
> The rules are somewhat vague about the effect of a wound. Jerry's
In the 99 version a wound reduces the model to a single action. Pretty much
the same for the 04 version.
> Has anyone put together any morale rules for FMAS yet? The 1999 rules
The 04 version introduces the concept of stress and removes the idea of
suppression. As a figure is shot at or otherwise the figure gains stress
chits. When it comes time to activate that figure you have to
make a test -- if you pass the stress chits go away and you activate.
If you fail bad things start to happen -- in this context "bad things"
means legging it off the table.
The suppression method in the 99 set did the job but the stress mechanic in
the 04 version really adds to the game I think.
Stress chits come from being shot at...witnessing the birth of an Old
One...eating anything from McDonalds, shooting sheep, etc.
> Is there anything that identifies what actions can be combined per
Up to the GM. There are more detailed close combat rules in the 04 set but I'm
of the firm opinion that you should just fudge it to make a good game.
I allow players to combine actions...such as move & shoot. It makes the fire
less effective but it's certainly more cinematic.
> Finally, the close combat rules probably need some tweaking.
Someone outnumbered 2:1 does have the disadvantage of having at least 2 but
perhaps 4 attacks against them in one turn. That's pretty big. The new set has
some giblets in there covering this situation.
Two rules when looking at FMA-S right now: steal from Stargrunt and
fudge the rest.
> From: "Derek A. Rogillio"
I'd suggest something like what JohnL and Indy were showing us Friday night.
If someone shoots at you, make a stress test. If you blow it, you have to dive
for cover or
otherwise disengage--or perhaps, if you're untrained, just
sit there and quiver. I tried something like that in FMA Sheep but we didn't
have as much fratricide as I'd hoped for, so I don't have an opinion on how
well it worked.
> Up to the GM. There are more detailed close combat rules
Strongly concur.
> Two rules when looking at FMA-S right now: steal from
I can send my "One Page FMAS Quick Reference Sheet", if you like.
Thanks for the response, Damo! Comments in-line ...
> damosan@comcast.net wrote:
Pretty much the same for the 04 version.
OK, that sounds reasonable then.
> The 04 version introduces the concept of stress and removes the idea
If you fail bad things start to happen -- in this context "bad things"
means legging it off the table.
> The suppression method in the 99 set did the job but the stress
Are suppression and stress really the same thing though? I can completely see
someone who is pinned and suppressed, but not likely to run. For example,
indiscriminate fire towards a position that has no chance to hit might keep
you pinned behind cover until the attacker stops firing. However, there is
very little stress since you can't be hit. I guess I'd have to see how it
works in the game.
> Up to the GM. There are more detailed close combat rules in the 04
I'm not above fudging it, but the periods and games I would be likely to
play would be heavily based on close combat actions. I'd rather have something
that important set and fudge the things that matter less.
When you say you allow players to combine actions, do you mean that you allow
them to combine different actions, the same, or both within an activation? For
example, can they move and fire or move and move in the
same activation?
> Someone outnumbered 2:1 does have the disadvantage of having at least
The new set has some giblets in there covering this situation.
> Two rules when looking at FMA-S right now: steal from Stargrunt and
I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but no more so than if they fought
two opponents on two consecutive turns. In the current rules, it's just as
likely to be able to defeat 10 opponents in a single turn as it is to beat an
individual opponent in 10 consecutive turns. That doesn't seem right to me. I
would think that if 10 ugly, nasty, drooly,
chitinous things are in your face that the group effort would make each
individual attack more effective. Maybe I'm off base here and it just works
out in the end.
> laserlight wrote:
Yes, that mechanic seemed to work well. Every time something happens you add
more stress which makes it more difficult to make the test. If you're getting
fired at by multiple opponents the stress goes up. A failed stress check
reduces your morale state, which in turn could make you get into cover, fall
back, or run away.
> I can send my "One Page FMAS Quick Reference Sheet", if you
I would definitely be interested in seeing it if you don't mind sending it to
me. Thanks for the advice and help!
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Derek A. Rogillio" <derek@rogillio.net>
> Are suppression and stress really the same thing though? I can
> run. For example, indiscriminate fire towards a position that has no
> hit. I guess I'd have to see how it works in the game.
I think you're mixing the ideas of suppresive fire vs. being suppressed.
You can do suppresive fire in FMA-S easily enough assuming your GM
allows you to do so. For example...
You have a mounted LMG with spare barrels, a case of cold beer, a dedicated
secondary gunner, and many belts of ammo.
If *I* was the GM I'd allow you, as an action, to turn the gun on and lay
suppresive fire towards some distant target forming a cone from the barrel of
the gun to the target. Any figure activating in this cone has a chance to get
splattered. As the GM I'd fudge the firepower roll to sort of model the fact
that you arn't going for accurate fire but to lay out enough lead to have
people keep their heads down. I'd further modify this number based on the lay
of the gun and the final target.
Are you doing grazing fire? Plunging fire? Are you shooting up at the target
area? Anyway that's all GM fudging at that point.
With that said...
If you have enough stress markers the chance of passing your activation test
becomes as close to zero as you can get. The affect is worse than it was in
the '99 set.
> When you say you allow players to combine actions, do you mean that
Generally it's some action and shooting. So you can move and shoot...drag a
wounded buddy and shoot. You have to use common sense though. You can't be
trying to crack a safe and lay fire at the same time.
> I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but no more so than if they
In the '99 set combat is basically "he who rolls highest wins." In the '04 set
you are only allowed to attack during your activation. So your 2:1 scenario
would see the outnumbered guy making two attacks....but defending against
four. There is a small chance the defender may actually harm the attacker but
the attacker has to roll pretty poorly for that to happen.
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, laserlight wrote:
> I can send my "One Page FMAS Quick Reference Sheet", if you
Everyone might like. Can you put the file up on a webpage somewhere? (Beats
everyone going me, too! on the list. Oh, yeah, ME TOO!)
That would be nice... (otherwise.. consider this a me too post:))
> Mike Stanczyk wrote:
If finding a home for it is an issue, I'll host it.
www.flakmagnet.com
> On Thursday 02 March 2006 03:51 pm, Mike Stanczyk wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 3/3/06, Derek A.
> Rogillio <derek@rogillio.net> wrote:
In this system a failure means the unit drops to Shaken, not stirred. If
already Shaken, then Run Away (and if in a ruined city environment, hope not
to get dragged through a broken window by a hiding Alien within, never to be
seen by your comrades again...).
Mk
> damosan@comcast.net wrote:
Help! Help! I'm being suppressed!
OK, that makes sense. I was combining both into the same mechanic but they are
being handled differently. The act of being suppressed has an actual rule
behind it, where suppressive fire is just an special,
non-standard action.
> You have a mounted LMG with spare barrels, a case of cold beer, a
Understood:)
> With that said...
Just to make sure I have this right... each time you are stressed you get a
marker. When the model tries to activate, a test must be made modified by the
number of stress markers. If the model passes the test,
the stress counters go away and it can make actions normally. If the model
doesn't pass the test, they don't get their normal activation. Does a failure
mean a rout, or just a loss of activation?
> Generally it's some action and shooting. So you can move and
OK, that's what I was looking for. The bottom line is that it sounds like you
can perform multiple actions, but you can't combine two movement or shooting
actions in the same activation. Correct?
> In the '99 set combat is basically "he who rolls highest wins." In
I think I understand. Based on your example, is each of the models in the 2:1
battle using two actions for close combat?
Thanks for all the clarifications, Damo!
> damosan@comcast.net wrote:
Jumping in here... First fail means a "shaken" chit, which adds to the
difficulty of passing further tests; second fail replaces this with a
"broken", and figure either flees the table or curls into a ball and huddles
there for the rest of the game....
> Generally it's some action and shooting. So you can move and
Not as I intended it (though this may be how some people are reading the test
rules, because I haven't had the time to do a revised
version for FAR too long now....). I'm quite happy with shoot/shoot,
move/move etc.
One of these days I'll get some time to write this all up properly
and let folks have a reasonably coherent set to play with! ;-)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Derek A. Rogillio" <derek@rogillio.net>
> Just to make sure I have this right ...
Indy answered this for me.
> OK, that's what I was looking for. The bottom line is that it sounds
The bottom line, per the rules, is that each model can perform two actions per
activation. A wounded model may perform a single action plus a free "ouch"
action.:)
These two actions can be whatever you'd like.
That's the "by the book" version.
I like cinematic displays of gunfire....or throwing grenades like grass seed.
So I'll allow a player to combine shooting and movement into a single action
if they want but penalize the shooting portion
dramatically. This is just my FMA-S hack -- other folks have their own.
When in doubt just fudge it and/or consult Stargrunt.
> >OK, that's what I was looking for. The bottom line is
I don't recall what I've mentioned on which list, but...we had lots of debate
on what happens if Adrian has used his actions and Jim activates, walks around
the corner, and knocks Adrian in the head. At present, Jim can do this at zero
risk, even if Adrian was spraying SMG fire past that corner a moment ago.
Overwatch looks like a solution but it's not really satisfactory. My idea
(swiped from DS3) was
to make a snapshot a zero-phase action, which means you can
shoot whie moving, and have a QD-based chance to shoot in
response every time someone moves into your LOS. This
assumes you have a multi-shot weapon--I wouldn't allow it
with, say, a TOW launcher.
Hey all:
I'd like to get a copy of this reference sheet as well.
Also, as much as I realize that FTIII is the discussion de jour, I think we
ought to give some serious attention to FMAS and see about getting it into a
final form for future publication. We've been playtesting these rules for
years now and I'd hate for it remain in that state. What more do we have to
test? What issues need to be resolved? Also, I think it would help if we
pooled the necessary rules together so we don't have to go hunting through the
achieves to piece together previous past postings.
Thanks,
Concur most heartily!
Bully!
Bob Makowsky
> --- "Mark A. Siefert" <siefertma@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Hey all:
On 3/4/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:58:15 -0600
> We've been playtesting these
Until/unless Jon opens up the discussion of the current rule set to
the main list, the discussion belongs on the playtest list. Jon has not
released the 2004 rule set to the main list. The rules that were released here
in several chunks have been superceded.
Right now the playtest list is waiting for Jon to pull together a number of
options into a coherent document. Unfortunately he hasn't managed to clone
himself, and he's been a little busy with running his business and working on
FT3.
> Also, I think it
There is an "official rules release" archive available to the playtest
listers.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> There is an "official rules release" archive available to the playtest
For the life of me, I haven't been ot the archives in a while. What the
URL/password again?
Thanks,
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> Allan Goodall wrote:
OK, I've found the GZG test list archieves and I got in, but where is this
"official rules release archieve"?
Thanks,