Hi List,
Long time lurker, but I rarely post. Usually just don't have anything to say.
I was just reading through the SG2 rules again tonight, particularly the rules
for prioritizing targets and how to more formally do it without getting into
arguments about which target is the biggest threat. Forgive me if this has
already been covered. Basically, I assigned a value to each condition Jon
listed, weighted by what order it's listed in. You might need to put this on a
card for quick reference, but here it is (top priority to lowest):
target is:
activated, close by, and in the open activated, close by, and in cover
activated, far away, and in the open activated, far away, and in cover OR
inactive, close by, and in the open (attacker's choice) inactive, close by,
and in cover inactive, far away, and in the open inactive, far away, and in
cover
The two big problems I see off the bat is my arbitrary assignment of distance
being more important than cover (done simply because it's listed that way in
the book) and not having a good definition of distance. How about:
1 range band is "close" and 2+ bands are "far" for untrained
up to 2 range bands are "close" and 3+ bands are "far" for green and
regular
up to 3 range bands are "close" and 4+ bands are "far" for veteran and
elite
If more than 1 target have the same priority, attacker chooses?
Just thought I'd throw this out there for a little feedback and in case anyone
is interested in trying it out.
Thanks.
Message>If more than 1 target have the same priority, attacker chooses?
One criterion not mentioned is "like against like"--ie, infantry
usually aims at infantry, tanks usually prefer tanks, and presumably powered
armor at powered armor.
Of course attacker chooses, trigger control. Unless a computer decides for
you.
Mihail <dmihail2@cox.net> wrote:Hi List,
Long time lurker, but I rarely post. Usually just don't have anything to say.
I was just reading through the SG2 rules again tonight, particularly the rules
for prioritizing targets and how to more formally do it without getting into
arguments about which target is the biggest threat. Forgive me if this has
already been covered. Basically, I assigned a value to each condition Jon
listed, weighted by what order it's listed in. You might need to put this on a
card for quick reference, but here it is (top priority to lowest):
target is:
activated, close by, and in the open activated, close by, and in cover
activated, far away, and in the open activated, far away, and in cover OR
inactive, close by, and in the open (attacker's choice) inactive, close by,
and in cover inactive, far away, and in the open inactive, far away, and in
cover
The two big problems I see off the bat is my arbitrary assignment of distance
being more important than cover (done simply because it's listed that way in
the book) and not having a good definition of distance. How about:
1 range band is "close" and 2+ bands are "far" for untrained
up to 2 range bands are "close" and 3+ bands are "far" for green and
regular
up to 3 range bands are "close" and 4+ bands are "far" for veteran and
elite
If more than 1 target have the same priority, attacker chooses?
Just thought I'd throw this out there for a little feedback and in case anyone
is interested in trying it out.
Thanks.
Haha:) But I thought one of the cool things about SG is that your troops have
a mind of their own and don't always do what you want?;)
I meant instead of any additional rules trying to further figure it out. There
comes a point when you have to just make the call and not worry about any
formula. I could just as easily have said you gotta roll randomly here. But
that kind of sucks, IMO.
[quoted original message omitted]
Question, then. The gist of the rule is that a squad will target whoever they
perceive as their biggest threat. Generally speaking, I'd wager that a
standard squad would be more afraid of a PA squad headed their way than they
would of another standard squad. Yes?
Any suggestions on how to work target TYPE into the equation?
> -----Original Message-----
I think you are getting into an area of "how you play". Book reads biggest
threat so in that case a PA squad is more of a threat even if they are further
away. This choice could lead to an argument but it would be "how the troops on
the table would react". As long as you can agree on those terms then I think
there is not a problem.
If you are playing with someone who is more concerned with winning than with
what happens then they will argue against anything that will help you and will
argue that you must shoot at the undersized section of militia to your front
<G>
Bob Makowsky
> --- Mihail <dmihail2@cox.net> wrote:
> Question, then. The gist of the rule is that a