Hi all! Got some questions about SGII rules and would like to know how you do
handle these ones:
1- How do you apply armor dice shift up for in cover vehicles :
D12x2 becoming D12x3 if vehicle hull down behind soft cover by example?
2- Smoke launchers : do you allow them a limited number of
shots or free to use them for all the game?
3- About smoke again, is the smoke cloud created at 6" or up to 6"?
4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand weapon
or should he have to choose between the two?
5- Does an hovering airplane (helico, vtol, grav etc...) could be shot
at by IAVR or heavy weapons?
6- Rules do not need a squad to take confidence test for seeing a
friendly squad beeing exterminated, anyone of you get house rule to handle
this?
Thanks for your help,
Hi,
> 1- How do you apply armor dice shift up for in cover vehicles :
Er.... I don't think I've ever allowed a vehicle to get an armour shift up in
cover.
I don't use vehicles much, so it hasn't been that much of an issue, but I've
always thought of them as being too big for that benefit.
> 2- Smoke launchers : do you allow them a limited number of
Free use during the game.
Maybe not so realistic, but much less paperwork. I do my best to have
"paperless" games.
> 3- About smoke again, is the smoke cloud created at 6" or up to 6"?
The smoke cloud must be created within 6". So, it could be 6" away, it could
be 1" away.
> 4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand weapon
Choose between the two. Keeps things simple.
I've played it the other way too, and it isn't a big problem - just
makes PA squads *really* powerful shooty units. If you like that, then go for
it.
> 5- Does an hovering airplane (helico, vtol, grav etc...) could be shot
It makes sense to me that they should be able to be shot at.
> 6- Rules do not need a squad to take confidence test for seeing a
No answer to this one.
> 6- Rules do not need a squad to take confidence test for seeing a
I believe Allan has house rules on this (and other things)--look at the
StarGrunt section of www.hyperbear.com
On 4/5/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 1- How do you apply armor dice shift up for in cover vehicles :
The rules don't actually cover this (pardon the pun). The assumption is that
if you hit a vehicle the projectile missed the cover.
There are no official rules for hull down vehicles. I've been working on my
own vehicle extensions that would cover this, but the rules don't. I suggest
two ways you can handle this:
1) If the attacker is aiming at a hull down vehicle (or a vehicle partly
sticking out from behind a building, etc.) the size of the vehicle drops based
on how much of the vehicle is showing. A size 5 tank with only half the turret
showing could easily be dropped to size 1 or 2.
The problem with 1 is that it's a bit subjective.
2) The other way of handling this is to come up with a table to see what part
of a vehicle was hit when part of it is hidden. If the exposed part is hit,
treat as a normal vehicle hit. If the protected part is hit, add the
protective factor of the cover to the armour of
the vehicle. For Hull Down it could be as easy as a D6 roll with 1 - 4
being a hull hit, and a 5 - 6 being a turret hit. It gets a little
trickier if the cover protects the vehicle horizontally instead of vertically.
Page 56 has armour values for buildings. I'm still trying to figure out the
armour value of a hill or berm.
(Oerjan, want to comment on protection due to berms and hills? How easy is it,
currently to hit a target that is hull down? Should hull down afford a vehicle
a size shift down, with shots either hitting the exposed vehicle or missing
entirely? How could you handle missiles, which have the defending vehicle
rolling an ECM die and don't take cover or range into account at all?)
> 2- Smoke launchers : do you allow them a limited number of
I allow them unlimited use. Since SG2 games rarely last more than about 10
turns, I didn't think it was worth limiting the smoke use.
> 3- About smoke again, is the smoke cloud created at 6" or up to 6"?
The rules specifically state 6". I understand there are modern vehicles that
can vary the range at which a smoke cloud appears, and 60 metres away seems
awfully distant to me. I personally allow up to
6".
I noticed you didn't ask the typical question of smoke: does it cost an action
to drop smoke? The rules don't say. I think the last time the list thrashed
this out the consensus was that it should cost an action.
> 4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand
This isn't covered in the rules, but I allow Power Armour with MLPs to
launch them as a support weapon _and_ attack with their own personal
weapon, but I know others who don't allow this. It's your call.
> 5- Does an hovering airplane (helico, vtol, grav etc...) could be shot
I have a house rule that says a grounded aerospace vehicle can be shot at like
a grounded vehicle, so IAVRs and heavy weapons fire at it like it was a tank
or a truck. I would allow the same thing against hovering vehicles.
> 6- Rules do not need a squad to take confidence test for seeing a
I've toyed with cascading morale in SG2 (i.e. losing morale due to seeing
casualties in other squads). In practice it tends to slow the game down.
There's also the question of what constitutes "seeing". If you have a readout
with the life signs of your platoon mates, will you lose morale as you see
their readouts go from green to red? Or does it only count if you physically
see them in person?
Personally, I don't find it necessary, but then again I use a slightly
modified version of the morale rules that are a slightly nastier, and they
seem to do the trick.
Could you not alter the effective size of the vehicle based on how much of it
is visible rather than actual size thus making it harder to hit based on its
visibility.
________________________________
From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu on behalf of Allan Goodall
Sent: Thu 06/04/2006 05:43
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Stargrunt II rules questions
On 4/5/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 1- How do you apply armor dice shift up for in cover vehicles :
The rules don't actually cover this (pardon the pun). The assumption is that
if you hit a vehicle the projectile missed the cover.
There are no official rules for hull down vehicles. I've been working on my
own vehicle extensions that would cover this, but the rules don't. I suggest
two ways you can handle this:
1) If the attacker is aiming at a hull down vehicle (or a vehicle partly
sticking out from behind a building, etc.) the size of the vehicle drops based
on how much of the vehicle is showing. A size 5 tank with only half the turret
showing could easily be dropped to size 1 or 2.
The problem with 1 is that it's a bit subjective.
2) The other way of handling this is to come up with a table to see what part
of a vehicle was hit when part of it is hidden. If the exposed part is hit,
treat as a normal vehicle hit. If the protected part is hit, add the
protective factor of the cover to the armour of
the vehicle. For Hull Down it could be as easy as a D6 roll with 1 - 4
being a hull hit, and a 5 - 6 being a turret hit. It gets a little
trickier if the cover protects the vehicle horizontally instead of vertically.
Page 56 has armour values for buildings. I'm still trying to figure out the
armour value of a hill or berm.
(Oerjan, want to comment on protection due to berms and hills? How easy is it,
currently to hit a target that is hull down? Should hull down afford a vehicle
a size shift down, with shots either hitting the exposed vehicle or missing
entirely? How could you handle missiles, which have the defending vehicle
rolling an ECM die and don't take cover or range into account at all?)
> 2- Smoke launchers : do you allow them a limited number of
I allow them unlimited use. Since SG2 games rarely last more than about 10
turns, I didn't think it was worth limiting the smoke use.
> 3- About smoke again, is the smoke cloud created at 6" or up to 6"?
The rules specifically state 6". I understand there are modern vehicles that
can vary the range at which a smoke cloud appears, and 60 metres away seems
awfully distant to me. I personally allow up to
6".
I noticed you didn't ask the typical question of smoke: does it cost an action
to drop smoke? The rules don't say. I think the last time the list thrashed
this out the consensus was that it should cost an action.
> 4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand
This isn't covered in the rules, but I allow Power Armour with MLPs to
launch them as a support weapon _and_ attack with their own personal
weapon, but I know others who don't allow this. It's your call.
> 5- Does an hovering airplane (helico, vtol, grav etc...) could be shot
I have a house rule that says a grounded aerospace vehicle can be shot at like
a grounded vehicle, so IAVRs and heavy weapons fire at it like it was a tank
or a truck. I would allow the same thing against hovering vehicles.
> 6- Rules do not need a squad to take confidence test for seeing a
I've toyed with cascading morale in SG2 (i.e. losing morale due to seeing
casualties in other squads). In practice it tends to slow the game down.
There's also the question of what constitutes "seeing". If you have a readout
with the life signs of your platoon mates, will you lose morale as you see
their readouts go from green to red? Or does it only count if you physically
see them in person?
Personally, I don't find it necessary, but then again I use a slightly
modified version of the morale rules that are a slightly nastier, and they
seem to do the trick.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> (Oerjan, want to comment on protection due to berms and hills? How
Once the vehicle has been spotted by the enemy, it is nearly as easy to hit as
if it had been in the open. The main benefit of going hull down is that
the vehicle gets harder for the enemy to spot before it opens fire - so
whether or not it should get a protective bonus for being in cover (signature
die shift, secondary target's die, whatever) depends on whether
or not you assume that the SG2 "to-hit" roll includes spotting as well
as
the aiming-and-pressing-the-trigger part of shooting. (I do make that
assumption - without it there's no real reason why Size/1 vehicles would
be
significantly harder to hit than Size/5 ones either - but I know others
who
don't.)
> How could you handle missiles,
I'd ignore the SG2 GMS mechanic completely, and instead treat them pretty
much as any other direct-fire weapon - albeit with an extra UP shift for
being guided and extra DOWN shifts for the target's ECM.
> >3- About smoke again, is the smoke cloud created at 6" or up to 6"?
Sounds pretty accurate to me... but the SG2 vehicle-launched smoke
screens
do seem rather narrow; IIRC real-world smoke screens tend to extend some
50-70 metres to either side of the vehicle (so the SG2 screen would
consist
of 5-7 2mu-wide cotton balls, rather than the 3 currently allowed).
Later,
On 4/6/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> The main benefit of going hull down is that
I've been making that assumption, too.
> I'd ignore the SG2 GMS mechanic completely, and instead treat them
Okay, so the firer would roll a Quality Die and a Guidance Die (which is
essentially the same as a Fire Control die). The Guidance Die is shifted up
one due to the weapon being guided (versus a
fire-and-forget missile). The Guidance Die is shifted down one for a
target with Basic ECM, down two for a target with Enhanced ECM, and down three
for a target with Superior ECM.
The target rolls a range die with range bands equal to 12" x the target's size
class. Being hull down would affect the target's size class, effectively
cutting the size in half or less (say a Size Class 5 tank is chopped down to
Size Class 2 for being hull down).
Example 1: Size 5 tank out in the open. Enhanced ECM. Regular missile team
with Enhanced guidance.
SG2 rules as written (RAW) - Firer rolls D8 + D8, target rolls D8.
House rules (HR) - Firer rolls D8 + D6 (D8 up 1 for guided, down 2 for
target's enhanced ECM), target rolls D4 on most tables and D6 beyond
60".
Example 2: Size 5 tank is hull down. Enhanced ECM. Regular missile team with
Enhanced guidance.
RAW - Firer rolls D8 + D8, target rolls D8.
HR - Firer rolls D8 + D6 (D8 up 1 for guided, down 2 for target's
enhanced ECM), target rolls D4 up to 24" away, D6 24+ to 48", D8 48+
to 72", etc.
It would appear that in most instances missiles are better under these rules
(which isn't necessarily a bad thing!).
What if instead of shifting the Guidance Die down due to target ECM we shifted
the range die up due to target ECM?
Example 1a: Size 5 tank out in the open. Enhanced ECM. Regular missile team
with Enhanced guidance.
House rules revised (HRR) - Firer rolls D8 + D10 (D8 up 1 for guided),
target rolls D8 (D4 shifted up two for Enhanced ECM) on most tables and D10
beyond 60".
Example 2a: Size 5 tank is hull down. Enhanced ECM. Regular missile team with
Enhanced guidance.
HRR - Firer rolls D8 + D10, target rolls D8 up to 24" away, D10 24+ to
48", D12 48+ to 72".
(The rules state that beyond a D12 for range a target can not be shot at.
However, in this case the range die is adjusted due to die shifts. If we make
the die shift open, we could shift the Guidance die down for each die beyond a
D12 for range. This is something I'm working on with my enhanced vehicle
rules.)
What do people think? I'm leaning toward the revised version myself, but the
way Oerjan put it might be more realistic.
> Sounds pretty accurate to me... but the SG2 vehicle-launched smoke
So smoke dischargers fire at a set range? Okay, that works for me. When I
codify my enhanced vehicle rules I'll add more smoke balls for smoke
dischargers.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> >I'd ignore the SG2 GMS mechanic completely, and instead treat them
Er - no, versus weapons firing ballistic projectiles (ie., most guns)
that can't adjust their trajectory to compensate for unexpected target
movements. A fire-and-forget ATGM is just as much "guided" as a
gunner-controlled one is; it's just that the sensors guiding the FoF
missile are mounted in the missile itself rather than in the launcher.
[...]
> What do people think? I'm leaning toward the revised version myself,
Within the restrictions posed by adhering to the standard SG2 to-hit
mechanic, anyway.
One feature you might want to model is that many missiles today have
*minimum* ranges of between 50 and 150-200 meters; they need that
distance both to arm their warheads and to stabilize and get up to speed after
leaving the launcher (so inside the minimum range they have severe
difficulties hitting anything, and most likely won't explode even if they *do*
hit). Even in the future I don't expect infantry missile minimum
ranges to drop much below 20 meters, mainly for safety reasons - if the
warheads *do* explode that close to the gunner, there's a major risk that
the gunner will be hit by rearwards-going missile fragments. (If OTOH
the missile is launched from an armoured vehicle the safety distance isn't a
very big concern, though.)
> >Sounds pretty accurate to me... but the SG2 vehicle-launched smoke
Many of today's smoke dischargers do, anyway; but I'm not at all sure that
*all* of them do and there's no technical reason why future ones couldn't have
variable ranges instead. (I can't see any pressing *tactical* reasons
for using variable-range smoke launchers - in most situations where
you'll want to use the smoke launchers you don't have much time to consider
what range you want the screen at, and if the enemy you want to hide from is
within 50 meters of you when you launch you're probably smoked anyway -
but that's another issue entirely.)
Set or variable range wasn't my point though; I was just commenting on the "60
meters away seems awfully distant" bit. The purpose of these smoke screens is
not only to hide the vehicle from enemy view, but also to allow it to
*manoeuvre* without being seen by the enemy. To accomplish that the screen
needs to deploy far enough away from the vehicle that it won't engulf the
vehicle (since that would slow the vehicle down, which is
*not*
what you want when you're trying to escape), and it also has to be wide enough
that the vehicle can move a bit parallell to the screen (eg. to dodge incoming
missiles) without immediately moving out from behind the screen again.
Later,
On 4/7/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:39:42 +0200
> A fire-and-forget ATGM is just as much "guided" as a
Okay, what about IAVRs? Should they get the shift up?
> >What do people think? I'm leaning toward the revised version myself,
Is that a vote for the revised rules that I mentioned, or did you prefer it
they way you described it?
> One feature you might want to model is that many missiles today have
Another thing to add to the list!
> (I can't see any pressing *tactical* reasons
There may be tactical reasons for keeping it closer, but I can't think of any
off hand either. As for not having time to think about it, it's possible that
an AI (or just really well designed tactical program) slaved to a vehicle's
sensors could make the decision for the tank crews in the future. We are
assuming about 200 years in the future, after all.
> Set or variable range wasn't my point though; I was just commenting on
There's also the "goal keeper" idea. When defending a goal, moving out of the
goal toward the attacker cuts down on the attacker's angle on the net. In
other words, the goal keeper fills a greater percentage of the attacker's
"cone" of attack. The same would be true of a smoke screen. The closer the
smoke screen is to the attacker, the more degrees of arc the smoke screen
obscures, from the attacker's point of view.
More stuff to add to my vehicle rules...
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> > A fire-and-forget ATGM is just as much "guided" as a
No, IAVRs are unguided. That's what sets them apart from GMS/P (and also
the reason why IAVRs aren't affected by the target's ECM).
> >>What do people think? I'm leaning toward the revised version myself,
Sorry, you lost me there. As far as I can see there's no contradiction between
what I described and the revised mechanic you mentioned... what I was trying
to say was that the revised mechanic is probably the best you
could do while still adhering to the standard heavy weapons SG2 to-hit
mechanic.
My vote would be for replacing *all* the SG2 heavy weapons to-hit rules
with the corresponding DS mechanics, but the way you phrased your previous
questions kinda excluded that option...
> >(I can't see any pressing *tactical* reasons
As long as the smoke doesn't blow back towards the launching vehicle...
> There's also the "goal keeper" idea. [...]
Which is one of the reasons why current smoke screens are as wide as they
are, covering roughly a 90-degree sector.
Regards,
On 4/8/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:04:49 +0200
Okay, cool.
> Sorry, you lost me there. As far as I can see there's no contradiction
Okay, I understand. My initial reading of your description was different from
my revised method. I think I understand now.
> My vote would be for replacing *all* the SG2 heavy weapons to-hit
Do you mean to use the DS2 mechanics, or the suggested DS3 mechanics?
I haven't paid much attention to the DS3 discussions. I have played DS2
exactly twice, and both games were with GW Space Marines figures I no longer
own. I have quite a few Renegade Legion vehicles as well as some Brigade
turrets to use to modify the RL figures. One of these days I intend to paint
them up for DS2. It's going to be a while before I get to them, though.
So, should I look at the DS2 mechanics as written, or those found in DS3? If
the former, do you recommend using chits or converting it to dice (which would
be my preference).
I have no objections to converting the SG heavy weapon mechanics to those of
DS, other than the fact that I'm not very familiar with the DS mechanics.
There are lots of advantages to using similar mechanics.
> As long as the smoke doesn't blow back towards the launching
I wonder if there will ever be a way to create smoke that can be penetrated by
one side but not another. Perhaps some kind of molecule that scatters light
unless polarized properly, and all a vehicle would need to do to polarize the
molecules is emit some sort of electrical signal. I don't know, I'm just
brainstorming. The point is that we're talking about combat 200 years from
now. The list has no problem with FTL drives and biological spaceships, so
they should be able to handle a "smoke screen" that's opaque from the outside
but somewhat more transparent on the inside.
I'm just thinking out loud. I suspect that even if this is feasible it would
make for a fairly unbalanced game unless there's some sort of counter
technology.
> Which is one of the reasons why current smoke screens are as wide as
That's good to know.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> >My vote would be for replacing *all* the SG2 heavy weapons to-hit
So,
> should I look at the DS2 mechanics as written, or those found in DS3?
Well, I wrote the DS3 draft because I wasn't fully satisfied with DS2 so of
course I'd recommend the DS3 to-hit rules to those who have a copy of
the
draft (eg. you, Allan); but I'd take either DS to-hit mechanic over the
current SG2 heavy weapons to-hit rule. I really *really* don't like the
way SG2 handles the interaction between heavy weapon ranges and target
signatures :-(
> If the former, do you recommend using chits or converting it to
For armour penetration once a hit has been scored, you mean? (Above I was
only talking about the *to-hit* mechanics, ie. how to score the hit in
the first place.) Just treat all heavy weapons hits against point targets as
"major hits" and use the SG2 armour penetration rule as written - that's
essentially what DS3 does already anyway <g>
(OK, it was more a case of converging evolution than a straight borrowing from
SG2, but the end results are nevertheless very similar.)
> I have no objections to converting the SG heavy weapon mechanics to
<g> OK. In some of our previous discussions you were a bit more reserved
about straying too far from the SG2 core :-)
> >As long as the smoke doesn't blow back towards the launching
I'd call such a system a "cloaking field" rather than a "smoke screen"
:-/
Let's hope that the enemy can't emit the proper polarizing signal
though...!
Later,
On 4/10/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I'd call such a system a "cloaking field" rather than a "smoke screen"
:-/
That works for me...
> Let's hope that the enemy can't emit the proper polarizing signal
If we assume the cloud is made up of tiny nanobots you could always assume the
polarizing signal is encrypted.
> 4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand weapon
I think that the rules are pretty clear on this one, a figure may spend one
action firing one weapon. So when the squad shoots he must choose which to
fire, but as the squads second action he may fire a second weapon.
On 4/12/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >4- MLP could they be fired by the same time trooper use his hand
That's a very good point, and something I keep forgetting: it's not the figure
that can fire only once per activation but the weapon!
> From the errata page on my web site:
Page 33: General Fire Procedure, paragraph 6, says, "...NO WEAPON MAY BE FIRED
MORE THAN ONCE PER TURN...". This should actually read, "...NO WEAPON MAY BE
FIRED MORE THAN ONCE PER ACTIVATION...".