rolling more or less dice for SG2 vehicles/weapons/armour

2 posts ยท Nov 11 2000 to Nov 14 2000

From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:21:07 -0500

Subject: rolling more or less dice for SG2 vehicles/weapons/armour

Well,

Hasn't this just stirred it up. I've been doing this now for more than a
year... more like two now. It seems to make the supertanks perform more
admirably (or reasonably) and it seems to make the HKP/4 pointed at the
Recon vehicle more likely to pop the armour 1 target.

Jon, why don't you do what I've come to regard as "the Tuffley Manouvre"
-
specify Die x N as your standard method, and NdX as an alternative for those
who like to roll more dice. That way you can (in a very easy method) have your
cake and eat it too!

You all know we'll do thins the way we like anyway, so just put these two
options together, and there you are. I've found since I use a lot of vehicles
that it makes their relative performance more in line with their size and
presumed point value (SG2 has no points, but one has to have some
method of balancing sides even if it is reading tea-leaves or chicken
entrails).

Someone - Peter? Allan? Suggested that varying IAVRs have differing
stats. The same should pretty much be true of SAWs as well.

You might have "Old antiquiated IAVR, iron sights, D6* Impact, maximum 3
bands" "Modern IAVR, limited fire control, D10* Impact" "Cutting edge IAVR,
better fire control, D12* Impact"

Similarly "SAW, firing light rifle rounds, bipod, no steady harness, D6 FP,
D<rifle> Impact" "LMG, firing heavier rounds, bipod, steady harness, D8 FP,
D<rifle> Impact" "GPMG, firing same heavy rounds, bipod, steady harness or
tripod, D10 (D12 if tripod) FP"

Etc.

To some extent SG2 is too granular to show the differences in rifle qualities.
But right now, IAVRs are pretty potent and the SAW (with D10 or D12 FP) seems
to put out a heck of a lot of fire relative to the rest of the squad with FP2
rifles. Essentially, it can easily double the FP dice of a squad and that has
noticeable ramifications (I'm not doing the math, but experience has taught me
it is nasty). In fact, sometime for a yuk put two SAWs in a large squad.
Horrendous. OTOH, if you imagine a SAW as a
Minimi/C9
style of weapon, you'd imagine D6 would be a fair firepower die for it.

But, to each his own! That's the nice thing about SG2, it is real easy to
modify. It's a hackers dream.

Also, on the topic of hitting moving vehicles with IAVRs and such.... if you
use staggered movement (standard rules) and you use no opportunity or snap
fire (definite candidates for inclusion in SG3), then you won't ever really
fire at a moving vehicle... it'll be stopped. When did it stop? Hard to say.
What if it only drove a few meters... is that moving? It gets to be a thorny
question. I like the idea, but it could be hard to do in a straightforward
way.

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:34:23 -0500

Subject: Re: rolling more or less dice for SG2 vehicles/weapons/armour

Hi Folks,

adding to the comments, for Jon's sake anyway (better consensus...?)

> Jon, why don't you do what I've come to regard as "the Tuffley
have
> your cake and eat it too!

That is a great idea. The option is there for people who want the relative
realism, and the simpler method is there for people who don't care so much and
just want to play fast and loose...

Personally, I like the way vehicle armour works now. I *like* the fact that it
is relatively easy to kill off big targets, mostly because it makes things
interesting to be able to add in vehicles, but not have them be unbalancing...
If the armour was more realistic, then you should use less
of them 'cause they're relatively stronger, etc etc.   I'm not a
simulation purist, clearly...

However, having said that, I went out and bought appx 8 - 10 complete
sets of polyhedral dice to support playing Stargrunt (I do quite a few
demonstration games around town) and have *no problem* with rolling 5 d12's
for a tank's armour...

How often are you going to see a size 5 vehicle in a Stargrunt game, anyway...

As Brian (I think) said - if you're using those sorts of vehicles often,
you should be playing DS...

I also don't know *any* gamers who don't have enough dice for this.

> Someone - Peter? Allan? Suggested that varying IAVRs have differing

This is something I don't like much. Less complexity is better, and the game
works really well as it is now... I don't want to ever have to consult a chart
if I don't need to, and right now, things are simple, simple, simple...

> But, to each his own! That's the nice thing about SG2, it is real easy

Absolutely. Good game design. Something there for everyone, and *lots* to work
with for those who like to fiddle.