On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:02:55 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> The big problem is the following statement from p 16:
Well, my English courses hit me on this. If you look at it another way, the
"transfer one or both of their actions" attaches to "to a subordinate unit or
units". Or, said another way, "...they can 'transfer' one action down their
chain of command to a subordinate unit, or both of their actions to
subordinate units". In strict English, that's how the sentence (in what I
remember from English) should be parsed.
Of course, it makes for horrible rules syntax. *S* We need a ruling from Jon
on this!
So, the question for Jon is... how many times can a unit be activated by a
command squad or squads through the transfer of actions?
> Being activated multiple times does give the activated squad the
I find the biggest problem is that it makes it too easy to keep one squad from
EVER getting suppressed. It makes for a "super squad" instead of forcing the
use of other squads.
> Here's the real problem I'm having with limiting the transfer of
Jon mentions movement in the book. Movement, even combat movement, is not
considered to be the maximum easily achieved. It's considered to be what is
average when the troops are hugging terrain and being careful not to get shot.
And 80% of reality isn't bad since Jon never does give a time scale for a
turn. 5 minutes a turn in SG2 is only a rough estimate. It could be 2 minutes,
or it could be 10, depending on what happens.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:02:55 -0500, Michael Sarno
Well, we're remembering English a bit differently, then. <g> The sentence, as
it is written, can be parsed multiple ways, none of them being the "correct"
way.
> Of course, it makes for horrible rules syntax. *S* We need a ruling
Jon's opinion on this matter is no more valid than yours or mine. He had the
opportunity to write the rule, and that's the rule he chose to write. He can
certainly address this issue in BDS or SGIII, but that wouldn't change the
rules in SGII.
> > Being activated multiple times does give the activated squad the
Which could represent the PL paying more attention to one squad and providing
it with the leadership, logistical, and command support it needs.
> It makes for a "super squad" instead of forcing the
Characterizing the squad as a "super squad" is a bit prejudiced. Unless we
know exactly the maximum capabilities of a squad given the complete attention
of the PL, we can't really make this comparison.
> > Here's the real problem I'm having with limiting the transfer of
Why can't I have my men sprint to their positions? Why can't troops move at a
march rate behind the fighting, along covered routes?
> It's considered to be what is
Right, which makes the case that if the same squad is activated a number of
times in the turn, it just happens to be one of those 10 minute turns. The
amount of activity during the turn would have some indication of how long the
turn lasted in minutes.
-Mike
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:02:55 -0500, Michael Sarno
The way you put it above is right, as far as the original intention is
concerned. One command unit may use one action to reactivate a single
subordinate unit, or both its actions to reactivate two DIFFERENT subordinate
units. Each subordinate unit may only be reactivated once by its immediate
command element per turn.
Now, if you also have higher-level command elements on the board, this
raises the question that if they reactivate a lower-level command unit,
may that unit then pass activations on to their subordinates again IF they
have already done so in their own activations (eg: 1st platoon command unit
activates as normal, and passes reactivatons to 1st platoon squads A and
B.
Now the Company command element activates, and uses an action to reactivate
the 1st platoon commander - the question is can the platoon commander
now reactivate A and B squads again or not?). My initial reaction was to say
no, but on thinking it over I really don't see why not - provided you
limit it strictly to the chain of command, the most activations any single
squad can get is equal to the number of command levels on the table, which
will almost never exceed three (squad, platoon, company). So, to add another
bit to the rule above: One command unit may use one action to reactivate a
single subordinate unit, or both its actions to reactivate two DIFFERENT
subordinate units. Each subordinate unit may only be reactivated once by its
immediate command unit per turn, UNLESS the command unit is itself reactivated
by a
higher-level command unit.
Now, the bit about "all transferred actions being resolved at the same time"
is actually meant to mean that all reactivations by a particular command unit
occur and are resolved immediately, before the opponent takes his next
activation, rather that being stored up for use later in the turn.
If this is clear enough, I'll get back to work on the FB2 now.... ;-)
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
The only danger I've seen with this ruling is that a squad of fast power armor
can really clean up if it's activated three times. I've seen them travel
almost the length of the table in those three activations...
Ture, it's a rare circumstance, but can knock a game severely out of whack
when it happens.
Tom
> Thomas Pope wrote:
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
But the officers are spending an awful lot of time coordinating that PA move,
so it's not all that difficult to argue that it should be allowed. We were
talking about this around here over the past day or so. Last night, we made
the house rule that you a leader could only transfer two activation during his
activation if they went to two different units. This eliminates most cases of
abuse. Now, we're still wrestling with the problem of having independent
leader figures transferring actions outside of the chain of command. I'm just
not sure what the best way to handle this would be.
-Mike
> On 24-Feb-00 at 09:19, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
> One command unit may use one action to reactivate a single subordinate
So, with two levels of command no the board.
Squad A takes two actions
Platoon Cdr reactivates two squads, so Squad A takes another two actions
Company Cdr reactivates Platoon Cdr, Platoon Cdr reactivates Squad A, Squad A
takes two actions.
Platoon Cdr skips a level on the chain and reactivates Squad A, Squad A takes
two actions.
After all is said and done Squad A has taken 8 actions during this turn.
Was this the desired affect?
> On 24-Feb-00 at 11:16, Roger Books (books@mail.state.fl.us) wrote:
Should have been: Company Cdr skips a level on the chain and reactivates Squad
A, Squad A takes two actions.
> After all is said and done Squad A has taken 8 actions during
just to bring a little of the other SGII thread over to this one, there is
only so much time in a single turn. people can only do so much in five minutes
for example, therefore I think that a unit can get 2 activations before the
turn is over.
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
> On 24-Feb-00 at 09:19, Ground Zero Games (jon@gzg.com) wrote:
So, Coy/Plt/Squad sturcture like this:
CoyCmd
|
Plt1 Plt2 Plt3
|
SqdA SqdB SqdC (for each Plt)
> Squad A takes two actions
No, because CoyCmd's re-activation of Plt1's Cmd and Plt1's re-atv of
Squad A are taking place 'at the same time', so SqdA is busy listening to
Plt1, not CoyCmd.
CoyCmd can re-activate two platoon Cmds, though, each of which can
re-activate two squads. This means four line squads and all three Cmd
units will move/activate at the same time.
> After all is said and done Squad A has taken 8 actions during
Only 6. It's own 2, Plt1's re-act (2) and CoyCmd-Plt1's re-act (2 more)
for 6.
CoyCmd & Plt1's Cmd can't both re-activate SqdA at the same time.
It's still berzerking (esp. for PA) but the Cmd officer types are putting a
lot of effort into making this one unit thunder onward. Six is also only
theoretical - bad die rolls on Comm checks happen, and ECM is always
entertaining. (In a game big enough to have CoyCmd on-table, I'd expect
at least a couple of ECM techs somewhere...)
> If this is clear enough, I'll get back to work on the FB2 now.... ;-)
Sounds plenty clear to this vacuum-head! No ulterior motives in mind. .
.
promise! ;-)
Bill
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:52:30 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> Well, we're remembering English a bit differently, then. <g> The
Yes, I guess we are. Although my friend Sherry (English major, and new
Stargrunt fan) tells me that, in a STRICT sense (not the only one) that's the
way to interpret it.
> Of course, it makes for horrible rules syntax. *S* We need a ruling
Say what??? Jon wrote the rulebook. If he wasn't clear, then his opinion on
how the rule SHOULD work IS more valid than anyone else's. He is the final
arbiter on how the rules should be interpreted, because it's his game.
Now, if you intend to play it a different way, no one is going to come to your
house and beat you with a stick. But it's Jon's rules, and his ruling is
considered official by me, at any rate, and the people I play with.
> He had the
He can certainly
> address this issue in BDS or SGIII, but that wouldn't change the rules
He isn't changing the SG2 rule. He's just clarifying it. If you want to play
it the other way, go ahead. As Jon has said in his "unofficial rule" you
bought the book, play it any way you want.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:40:53 -0800 (PST), Brian Burger
<yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> It's still berzerking (esp. for PA) but the Cmd officer types are
It also assumes that the enemy is letting this happen. A suppression result or
two can slow up this squad. This, in fact, is a good reason to allow the split
fire of squads for suppression purposes. (There was another thread recently
where allowing a squad to split its fire -- so that half the squad fired
at a
unit then the other half of the squad fired at the same unit -- was
considered "cheesy". This tactic decreases the likelihood of casualties but
increases the likelihood of suppression.) The only way to slow down this fast
moving, berzerk squad is to put lots of suppression on it.
My personal preference in SG2 is to reward success, not failure. If a squad
gets a couple of suppression markers on it, I will usually look elsewhere on
the battlefield for a squad to be activated by a leader. Especially if ECM
will make the transfer of the action to the suppressed unit a crap shoot
anyway.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:52:30 -0500, Michael Sarno
Jon just posted to the list about his interpretation on the number of
activations a unit may have in one turn. As part of his "official"
pronouncement he said:
The way you put it above is right, as far as the original intention is
concerned. One command unit may use one action to reactivate a single
subordinate unit, or both its actions to reactivate two DIFFERENT subordinate
units. Each subordinate unit may only be reactivated once by its immediate
command element per turn. <snip> My initial reaction was to say no, but on
thinking it over I really don't see why
not - provided you limit it strictly to the chain of command, the most
activations any single squad can get is equal to the number of command levels
on the table, which will almost never exceed three (squad, platoon, company).
So his "official" interpretation has changed over time. What he meant to
write, wasn't what he wrote, which is in turn different from what he wishes he
had meant. The rules stand as a completed work. If you start using outside
sources, none of them are inherently more authoritative than the rest.
-Mike
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:40:53 -0800 (PST), Brian Burger
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day! We agree on something!
<g>
-Mike
> likelihood of suppression.) The only way to slow down this
Antimatter ortillery works just fine, albeit to the detriment of local
scenery.
> -----Original Message-----
BIG SNIP
> he had meant. The rules stand
Hi Mike,
I agree with you that as SGII Version 1 the rules are a completed work but I
must agree with Allan that Jon Tuffley and Mike Elliot's opinion's ARE more
valid than anyone elses on this list and when we are talking about a work of
fiction (which is what a set of SF rules are..) then the Author is THE
authoratitive source. They've developed the methodolgies of the games from its
original design concepts and publishing first as SGI then SGII.
I really think you'll find that the majority of the people on the list most
likely accept an interpretation ruling from either of these two as a final say
on a discussion.
Anyone else disagree?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:33:55 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> Even a broken clock is correct twice a day! We agree on something!
<g>
I think we probably agree on more than just that ONE thing! *L*
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> I really think you'll find that the majority of the people on the list
The "majority" throughout history doesn't have a great track record of being
correct. <g> If the best argument you can offer is that "most
people say 'so-and-so,'" you probably need to think a bit longer on the
subject.
-Mike
I kinda agree with both Owen Glover and Mike Sarno.
But otherwise this seems to be becoming a flame contest.
Perhaps we should talk about other things now?
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:56:33 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> The "majority" throughout history doesn't have a great track record
Quite true. On the other hand, if you're looking for consensus in a convention
tournament situation, or just when running games at a convention, or when you
have disparate gaming groups coming together.
In other words, if you get a bunch of guys together and they can't make a
decision, Jon's word is going to take the day. But as I've said before, if
your group wants to interpret it otherwise, go for it!
> On 27-Feb-00 at 19:58, Michael Sarno (msarno@ptdprolog.net) wrote:
Here, try this.
The game designer has the official say on any rules. Why? Because in the next
revision he can write them in as he sees fit. Now, the players have final say
on which rules they use.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:56:33 -0500, Michael Sarno
Right, but are you really going to go along with a ruling just because some
guy says that Jon says "so-and-so"? You don't have this e-mail list as
a reference when you're at a convention. You only have the text of the rules.
Jon just gave us his "official" interpretation and freely admitted that the
way he interprets the rules now is completely different from the way he did
when he wrote the rules. So now you're requiring someone who wants to play
"official" SGII to follow this list, and every post that Jon makes on it. That
just doesn't sound like a good idea. SGII is SGII plus any errata that is made
available. Jon's personal interpretations are not part of SGII or errata. If
you're playing according to Jon latest interpretations, you are no more
playing "official" SGII than if you play with your own group's house rules.
> In other words, if you get a bunch of guys together and they can't
That's just silly. If Jon says that he interprets the rules as saying that
each activation gives the sqaud THREE actions, that is simply wrong. The rules
DON'T say that any more than they limit each squad to two or three activations
per turn. Which, by the way, are two different interpretation that Jon has
admitted to using: one in the past, one presently.
> But as I've said before, if
Yes, we are in complete agreement on this point. My comments only relate to
what is meant by "official" SGII.
-Mike
> Roger Books wrote:
> The game designer has the official say on any rules. Why? Because
But that has no effect on SGII. That would be SGIII or whatever. For example,
when FB came out, that didn't change the FT rules. If you're going to run a
game at a con using FB rules, by all rights the system is noted as
FT/FB.
-Mike
> On 28-Feb-00 at 11:03, Michael Sarno (msarno@ptdprolog.net) wrote:
At the convention tournament whoever is running the tournament has the final
say. If he says "Well, on the mailing list Jon said X and I am going with
that" you go with that. If he says "I'm not on the mailing list, I am running
it as Y" then you go with that.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:01:24 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
> Right, but are you really going to go along with a ruling just
I will have a copy of the e-mail printed off. If I'm refereeing, I'll
just say, "Jon says so." That's good enough. Most people will take a ref's
ruling anyway. And if I'm playing in another guy's game, I'll say, "Jon says
this." If he disagrees, I'll go with his ruling as he's the ref. If I'm
playing
someone else without a ref, the e-mail should help decide the issue.
> You only have the text of the rules. Jon
I just read his interpretation e-mail, which I've kept. That's not what
he says. He says what the initial interpretation was (which is the same as how
I interpreted it). The only part that he interprets "completely differently"
now was in regard to transferring actions when there is more than one level of
command involved. And that was always very unclear in the rules anyway.
> So now you're requiring someone who wants to play "official" SGII to
Jon's
> personal interpretations are not part of SGII or errata.
Well, you see I disagree with you right here. Jon's interpretations ARE part
of the errata. Jon wasn't clear with the rule. The rule can be read in one of
a number of ways. This causes arguments. So, Jon is telling us how he MEANT to
say it. In essence, he is giving us the corrected wording for the rule. This
is the same as if there was a typo and the rule was wrong or unclear because
of that.
> If you're playing
You see, I don't understand this. What is "official" SG2? The rules, as
written? But if that's the case, what do you do with rules that are vague? For
the rules to be "official", everyone should be interpretting vague rules the
same way. Especially one so critical as the action transfer rules.
Jon wrote the rules. He was vague on a couple of them. He's now saying, "This
is what I meant to say." In the case where you have to take one of two ways of
looking at a rule, Jon's way is the right way.
> That's just silly. If Jon says that he interprets the rules as
The rules
> DON'T say that any more than they limit each squad to two or three
Well, first off, Jon's rules are very CLEAR as to how many actions a squad
gets. It's stated in black and white. It's EXPLICIT. Jon is NOT clear in how
many activations a squad can receive. It is open to interpretation. By
definition, it means that it is NOT explicit. It can be interpreted; you can
read the rule more than one way due to the way it is worded. As written, you
can interpret the rule one of two (or more) ways.
We've discussed this. I took the rule to mean one thing, you took it another.
The rule can ONLY be played one way, so which way is right? You seem to imply,
in all your posts, that your way is right when Jon has said it isn't.
> Yes, we are in complete agreement on this point. My comments only
Well, "official" SG2 is what Jon said it is. He wrote it.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> We've discussed this. I took the rule to mean one thing, you took it
Jon's present interpretation is the EXACT interpretation that we've been
using: one transfer per squad per commander in the chain of command. What he
meant to write, and I suppose what was his "official" interpretation in the
past, is not what we've been using. This is THE problem that I have with this
"official" designation. You can be playing the same way for years, but one
minute it's considered a "house rule" and then Jon says something on a mailing
list (or maybe even in a pub! <g>) somewhere and then it's official. Even
worse, is vice versa.
-Mike
> Brian Burger wrote:
> > So, with two levels of command no the board.
Sorry to jump in at this late date but I just saw this. So theoretically,
given my slightly modified diagram above, each of the four squads could get
six actions. That's *quite* a force multiplier.
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Jeff Miller wrote:
> Brian Burger wrote:
If you cut the company down to two line platoons, and each plt down to only
two line squads? Not really...
A 3 Plt/3sqd Coy has 9 line squads and four HQ squads. Assuming all HQ
squads do nothing but reactivate line squads and all Comm calls get through,
you've got 34 total actions by my count.
A 2x2 Coy has only 4 line squads and 3 HQ squads, and gets only 24
activations.
I'd rather have the 3x3 - 2x2 is a false economy for most actions. OTOH,
for smaller formations - special forces types, for example - it's a bit
of a bonus. For line missions, though, I'd rather have the 3x3.
This isn't counting the HQ's own non-command actions - movement, arty
calling, acting as a combat reserve (esp. for the plt commands) etc etc. The
extra warm bodies and secondary commanders (squad) make the 3x3 much more
dangerous and flexible that the 'optimized' command structure of a 2x2
company.
At 8 troopies/squad (line & HQ), a 3x3 has 104 all ranks at full
strength. 2x2 only has 54 all ranks. All those extra shooters far outweights
any fiddling with command structures... (I use my HQ squads as reserves as
well, so they're as big as my line squads in most of my formations.)
> I lost the orignial post (Jon's Ruling), so I am unsure if he indicated
leader can only reactivate the same unit twice if he is himself reactivated.
otherwise leader can reactivate unit only once.
> Otherwise I count 14 actions for Sqd A if you allow the same commander
no, can't do this.
> - CoyCmd reactivates Pit 1
ok, but that's it.
> - Pit 1 uses 2nd action to reactivate Sqd A
no.
> - CoyCmd 2nd Action is to reactivate Pit 1
no.
Total should be: squad a - 2 of his own actions, 2 when reactivated by
plt cmdr, and then 2 more when coy cmdr reactivates plt cmdr, who reactivates
squad a again. Total is 6 actions in one turn, and *that is it*!
(according to St.Jon, anyway... but others seem to think Jon's "suggestions"
on this stuff don't count...?)
I lost the orignial post (Jon's Ruling), so I am unsure if he indicated that a
leader could reactivate the same unit twice as his 2 actions. If not, then
you are correct. (Could someone please send it to me off-list to the
address below, Thanks).
Otherwise I count 14 actions for Sqd A if you allow the same commander to
reactivate a unit twice.
1 Sqd A activates for 1st Action 2 Sqd A 2nd Action
- Pit 1 uses an action to reactivate Sqd A
3 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 4 Sqd A 2nd Action
- Pit 1 used 2nd action to reactivate Sqd A
5 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 6 Sqd A 2nd Action
- CoyCmd reactivates Pit 1
- Pit 1 reactivates and uses 1st action to reactivate Sqd A
7 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 8 Sqd A 2nd Action
- Pit 1 uses 2nd action to reactivate Sqd A
9 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 10 Sqd A 2nd Action
- CoyCmd 2nd Action is to reactivate Pit 1
- Pit 1 reactivates and uses 1st action to reactivate Sqd A
11 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 12 Sqd A 2nd Action
- Pit 1 ruses 2nd action to reactivate Sqd A
13 Sqd A reactivates for 1st Action 14 Sqd A 2nd Action
CoyCmd was activated once for 2 actions Pit 1 was activated 3 times for 6
actions Sqd A was activated 7 times for 14 actions
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Brian Burger wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Jeff Miller wrote:
OK, I wasn't proposing cutting the size it's just that the other units weren't
relevent to the point I was bringing up. They would get their own actions
reguardless.
I was thinking more about how effective a spearhead action by a group of crack
troups could be and how valuable the HQ units are in general.