recently in a game of SGII me and my friend got into an argument over how
untreated casualties affect confidence tests. I was arguing that if a squad
took casualties from fire then each untreated casualty should count towards
the threat level for the confidence test. in this case he had taken two
casualties and he was at low motivation so this rule actually applied. This
meant he had a
threat level of +4 instead of +2. He argued that he hadn't had a chance
to treat the casualties yet so this modifier shouldn't apply yet. I was
wondering how other people interpreted this rule.
Hmm, we treat this as adding the penalty for all SUBSEQUENT tests, but not for
the one in which the combat result in casualties.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:13:41 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> Hmm, we treat this as adding the penalty for all SUBSEQUENT tests, but
I can see both sides of the argument. I did a check on the rules, and this
just isn't clear. However I agree with Owen. Our group usually assumes that
the Untreated Casualties are from previous fire.
Â
"Glover, Owen" wrote: Â
Hmm, we treat this as adding the penalty for all SUBSEQUENT tests, but not for
the one in which the combat result in casualties. As do we. But looking it up
in the rules I begin to wonder, as they are written it seems to me as if the
penalty should apply immediately. I've often felt that a unit with low MM
should have a more severe confidence tests than
the mere TL 2. Of course, I'm biased, I like severe confidence tests :-)
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
Well, you can play it either way depending on how severe you like your morale
reactions to be, but the original intention is as Henrix interprets
it - an "untreated" casualty is one that's probably screaming his head
off, which starts right after he gets hit, to the detriment of the squad's
morale until someone has slapped a med-patch on it and stuffed him full
of
No-Shok(TM) till he shuts up.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:46:05 +0000, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
> Well, you can play it either way depending on how severe you like your
Hmmm... IS there a Stargrunt 2 FAQ out there? Because if not, I'm thinking of
creating one...
And this isn't how I interpretted it, but it works for me. I don't have many
low motivation scenarios so it hasn't really come in to play. I do like my
morale tests severe... even more severe than is in the book, hence the two
small, subtle changes that I made to the morale rules that make for more
morale drops...
> -----Original Message-----
Although a game (any rule set that is) can sometimes get bogged down in Morale
checks, the more sever results of a check can benefit the game. The maximum
Two CL drops in any one Confidence check in SGII is a good measure that a unit
won't go from an Elite pumped gang of pscho killers to a quivering spineless
gaggle of cowards on one role of the dice.....i think that was honestly most
irked me in WRG's 7th Ed ancients; seeing my Aztec Irreg A Otomi see a unit of
scumbag peasants break and suddenly fail a test and become shaken, then see a
second lot of peasants break and then they routed!
Back on track though, we've been playing what we call the 'Rule of worst
consequence' which basically provides for no requirement for an umpire or
referee to decide outcomes of discussions; essentially if there is a bone of
contention then whoever is being fired at, checking for morale etc takes the
worst outcome! "Is this squad being fired at in cover/LOS?" Sadly YES!!
Works really well as it speeds games along. Most firefights are lost not
because someone is doing something really good but more to the point that
someone stuffed up!
I'm loath to suggest Jon produce a sheet of ammendments; rather a FAQ2 would
likely be quite welcome at this point.
Start writing Allan :-)
> Hmmm... IS there a Stargrunt 2 FAQ out there? Because if not, I'm
I _am_ working on one, but I haven't posted it to USG2WS yet because it
still needs work - both questions and answers.
Though going on the basis of the people clamouring for one, I may just have to
post and be damned.:)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:01:30 +1100, "J Sadler" <jsadler@earthling.net>
wrote:
> I _am_ working on one, but I haven't posted it to USG2WS yet because it
You should post what you have here and let others add to it. A communal FAQ
would probably assure that we get all the stuff in it that's needed. Of
course, then you have problems with conflicting visions, but you can be the
final arbiter...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:56:43 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@museum.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> Although a game (any rule set that is) can sometimes get bogged down in
The
> maximum Two CL drops in any one Confidence check in SGII is a good
I like that too. Unfortunately, I've seen too much of the other end of the
scale. A squad loses 6 out of 8 people but is still confident? Okay, elites I
can sort of see that, but regulars?
My two changes were just to the tests themselves. First, I changed the rule
that gave a 4/3/1 test for low/med/high motivation troops if they took
more casualties in one turn than they had figures left. It's a simple change;
I reworded it to state that the test is done if the squad took the same or
more casualties as it had figures left in the squad.
Second, I made use of the squad status card's "full strength" listing. Once a
squad loses half or more of it's full strength complement, I make it take a
4/3/1 test. This is in addition to the usual morale rolls, but it's only
done once in the game (I do have some additional clarifications in situations
where two squads are combined together to form one new squad).
So, one rewording of the morale rules, and one additional test. The result is
that a squad that takes a lot of casualties rarely remains at confident
(unless elite). Basically, I stiffened the penalty for taking lots of hits to
a squad, which in turn rewards a player who pulls badly hurt squads out of the
line and replaces them with reserves.