SG actions rule clarification

> At 12:29 PM 10-06-98 +1000, you wrote:
The
> answer is to carry out a number of tasks that can't be done by the

> their combat between 2 actions ie.
I don`t know about using the rules to gain an advantage, but I do know that
squads do that type of thing in real life.

Here's a SG Question for Jon.

A squad has eight troopers, 6 riflemen with advanced assualt rifles
Fire-power 3, and two SAW's Fire-power D8. This Squad can lay out a
fair bit of fire power in just one action but can this unit also divide their
combat between 2 actions ie. 1st Action: 3 riflemen and 1 SAW, 2nd Action the
other 3 riflemen, the other SAW. Or must all of the riflemen who are going to
fire, fire in the same action with only the two SAW's being able to fire in
the other action because they are support weapons.

Hi Trevor,

This is one of the situations that if you INTERPRET the rules in that way; "it
doesn't say you can't so you can!", type of answers.

Jon T. and Mike Elliot have replied to a number like this, and basically it is
not in the spirit of the rules and is another example of trying to
min/max the rules.

Breaking off a detachment is another example of using the rules to gain
advantage.

There was a discussion about using detachments like this and it came down to
asking why do you break off a detachment in the first place? The answer is to
carry out a number of tasks that can't be done by the whole squad all at once.
eg Perhaps engaging TWO enemy squads that are firing at the squad, or sending
the detachment with a support weapon off to provide covering fire to enable
the main squad to cross some open ground.

Hope this hasn't put a damper on your game plan.

Cheers,

Owen

PS how are the extra Ocenaic Union ships coming?

[quoted original message omitted]

> Glover, Owen wrote:
The
> answer is to carry out a number of tasks that can't be done by the

Thanks Owen for your reply It wasn't so much as me wanting to do it to
maximise or cheat in the game, its more like its being done and I don't think
this is right. The culprets (myself included until I started reading the rules
again) aren't actually detaching elements but are just dividing their
firepower

through two actions to get more dice to roll at the target in an activation.
The dice are actually lower D types but there are more of them during an
activation and tend to create more suppressions if not casualties. I don't
think its right and is just twisting the rules because its not so clear cut.

The Oceanic Union Ships are coming along nicely thanks, although I think

Nic wants them to become UN as he dosen't think Oceanic Union would have

Dreadnaughts and Carriers, I guess that descision will be made at GZG if

they like them.

Regards to all

> You wrote:

> This is one of the situations that if you INTERPRET the rules in that

Actually, if you check P. 15, it says "Note that even if all the squad is
together, one action NEED NOT (GZG's caps, not mine) affect ALL
members of the squad - the player may decide to have some squad members
fire at one target (eg. the ordinary troopers and the SAW gunner), while he
uses the other action to make the squad's missle launcher fire at another
target such as an enemy vehicle."

> Jon T. and Mike Elliot have replied to a number like this, and

I'd say it would be realistic keeping in mind the Target priority rules. If a
squad is on a hill with bad guys coming at 'em from two directions, the SL
might very well say "A team shoot that way, B team shoot this way." Splitting
one's fire against a single target is a little gamey, though.

> Breaking off a detachment is another example of using the rules to

Then why is it in there?  Detachments are fairly common in RL--I've
done a squad breach with a fire team breaching, right and left security, and a
pair of guys with the '60 (Engineer platoons still have one per squad, at
least in the Guard) supporting back on a hill. Total: 4 elements, two of one
man each, plus the squad leader, who moves around a bit.

> Glover, Owen wrote:
[snip]

The spirit (if not the letter) of the rules in this case is that you can split
squad fire down to engage two SEPARATE targets, but not to get two shots in
one activation at the same target. This may actually be stated somewhere, but
I can't remember for sure (hey, I only wrote it, you don't expect me to
remember it too?):)

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> Exactly what I said?! The separate action is for firing a support
Trevor is >referring to splitting riflemen fire which is where you would use a
>detachment.

I'd allow them to fire on seperate targets without forming detachments, but my
initial miffedness (is that a word?) came from misunderstanding initial
question. I didn't catch that it was two shots at same target. That's too
gamey for words, and anyone who tried it in one of my games would be beaten to
death with a bar stool (That's what the Game Parlor provides at their game
tables). Next question: NSL power armor trooper with APW (rifle) and rocket
pack. Can he fire APW in first action with rest of squad's rifles, and rocket
pack in second
action--likely at same target?  How about one with APW and SLAM/1?

> Next question: NSL power armor trooper

No. If a Power Armour trooper (or any other trooper) could fire weapon A in
one action then weapon B in another action then what is to stop them firing
weapon A in both activations? It's surely easier for the trooper to fire the
same weapon twice than to aim and fire two different weapons. And as firing
the same weapon twice is banned by the rules than I guess firing two different
ones is as well.

> How about one with APW and SLAM/1?

There's no such thing as a SLAM/1. SLAMs come in sizes 3 to 5 only.

> You wrote:

> No. If a Power Armour trooper (or any other trooper) could fire weapon

Hrm... then to make sense to issue both a MLP and a APW, you've gotta give the
MLPs limited ammo. Which sorta makes sense. The other way is to read the
paragraphs on P. 30 to imply that both can be fired at the
same target at the same time--possible with computor-control, but not
likely. On the other hand, if you can incorporate underbarrel GLs into a 'fire
small arms' action, why not triggering a pack of rockets?

> How about one with APW and SLAM/1?

What is that on top of those NSL PA troops? I'm not talking the little bitty
dual rocket packs, I'm talking the BIG ones.

> Next question: NSL power armor

My take on this would be to disallow fire by the same firer at more than

one target in a turn. The only way I think firing two weapons at once, by the
same firer, is at the same target (preferably in the same resolution if
possible). The only exception to this line of thinking
would be a vehicle that had more than one firecon and/or a crew member
that's firing a weapon manually with the primary guidance being the trusty old
eyeball mark 1.

> Hrm. . . then to make sense to issue both a MLP and a APW,

It makes sense to do that regardless of whether they can fire at the same time
or not. But that leads to fitting the whole squad with them. We have to take a
cheese test and think about logistics, which takes us on to....

> you've gotta

Does to me to. Mounted as they are, theydon't look very easy to reload in the
field.

> The other way is to

Yeah. If they can be fired in the same turn/activation with an APW then
it surely has to be at the same target in the same action. Anything else
starts my cheese alert ringing.

> On the other hand, if you can incorporate underbarrel GLs into a 'fire

Where does it stop? If a PA trooper can fire an APW and an MLP why not a

SAW and an MLP? Why not two SAWs and an MLP? After all with PA you only need
one hand to fire a SAW (at least based on the miniatures).

> >> How about one with APW and SLAM/1?

SGN-24 right? I have no idea what they are meant to be. DS2 states that
SLAMs come in sizes 3 to 5 and SLAMs aren't mentioned at all in SG2.
It wouldn't be too hard to write stats for a heavy-MLP though. Leave the

firepower at D8 and up the Impact to D10* or D12*. Can definitely not be fired
at the same time as an APW. And definitely carries a limited number of rounds.