[Allan]:
The rules are clear on this one. Page 40.
You roll FC + QD
for the DFFG vs. Range Die for the infantry. Casualties are determined as per
small arms fire. The impact die, though, is D8 versus the infantry's armour.
[Tomb] Okay, I've learned something.
However, let me point out that if you are
rolling a DFFG/5 or an APSW, you get the
same D8 for FireCon and the same D8 for impact. Fascinating.....
[Tomb] Re HAMR: Yes, I think it is
overblown, but the RFAC still comes up short relative to the much smaller
Gauss
SAW. I think an RFAC/1 (20-30mm) really
requires an impact in the range of 2d6* or 2d8* or something or at the very
least D12*. Unlike some of the weapons (HVC firing HE, etc), the RFAC fires
probably AP or API or some such kind of rounds that likely will do impact
hits. Giving it a D8 impact seems utterly inadequate, and even giving it D10*
(since the * will never play into an infantry firefight due to the fact it
only matters attacking vehicles) isn't much better. I've relegated the HAMR to
d12* in my world also.
[Tomb] As an aside, Adrian well described
the battle but he forgot to compliment the
FSE/ESU side for being good sportsmen
and playing out a retreat action after it became obvious they'd get
slaughtered if they tried to press the attack.
[Tomb] Now, on the matter of crew bail
out, I think if the crew commander yells "out out out!", the infantry probably
should. And although Ryan makes a good point about bailing out at the wrong
time, he makes assumptions about training. Probably well trained infantry
won't bail out unless the armour crew commander orders a general bail out.
Perhaps a green infantry squad inside a disabled vehicle should take a panic
test, and if they fail, bail out anyway even if the crew stays.
[Tomb] As to the abstract turn sequence
and vehicles and embarking/debarking
infantry.... I don't really think that the abstract turn sequence is anything
but a red herring here. The point is a vehicle that double moves has spent all
the actions it could possibly spend in one round moving. It couldn't go any
further. So does it then make sense that an infantry squad could debark from
the vehicle and move freely? (yes, I concede they spend one action).
Ultimately, you get three actions worth of movement when any other unit could
get but two.
The way I usually run it: Embark/debark
costs 1 action for both vehicle and troops. You can only embark on an
unactivated vehicle and only debark from an activated one. So, you have
vehicle activates, moves or fires, debarks troops. Troops, then having
automatically been activated, take their one remaining action. For
embarkation, troops activate, move to the vehicle, spend an action to embark,
then the vehicle takes its one remaining action, usually drive away. No
bookkeeping complexity. Of course, another interesting point was brought up:
If a vehicle with troops aboard decides to fire, instead of move, why can't
troops simultaneously debark? The answer is, they probably could. As to Tony's
comment about how often does this come up? For me, just about
every second game I see 3-6 vehicles on
the board, of which 50% are likely to be APCs so quite regularly....
[Tomb] As to the resolution of vehicle fire
without special rules, (and yes, this makes them a bit tougher):
1. Range bands are multiplied by weapon size class. So an MDC 5 has 60" range
bands. (This is nasty.... a less nasty option is just giving vehicle mounted
heavy weapons a 24" range band).
2. When firing at infantry behind a brick wall, for example, ignore the cover.
Rationale: You aren't firing at the infantry. You're firing at the brick wall.
You're a tank gunner.... you know your round hitting the wall will punch down
the wall and throw bricks (or melt them) and anything behind the wall is in a
world of hurt. I'd give the grunts the armour shifts, but the truth is that a
tank doesn't have to work too hard to hit a small shack at 400m. Or, do what
Brian and I did when we worked on the bunker rules. Assign the wall an armour
value (brick, say armour 1.... thick stone maybe armour 2). Fire at the wall
(call it a size 1 chunk of wall). If you hit the wall, roll damage
(remembering to double if major impact) and roll armour for the wall. If you
penetrate subject everyone inside to D8 attack (or alternatively, you could
keep track of how much you penetrated by and use that to figure how many
casualties then apply that many D8 attacks or something like that).
A DFFG/5 in DS2 has a 6km range and
anything in the closer range bands dies when it points at them. At 400m, it
ought to be a VERY BAD THING to have this pointed at you.
Tomb.
Hi folks,
> [Tomb] As an aside, Adrian well described
My bad.
The FSE/ESU side did a great job of getting their forces out, after they
had walked into something much bigger than their intel briefing had prepared
them for. And the very bloodthirsty NAC side who really wanted to play out the
slaughter... er... defensive action... were thankful to the
FSE/ESU guys for being good sports and playing it out.
> [Tomb] As to the abstract turn sequence
Yes, it does. If you are playing the vehicles and the squads as separate
units, then they are separate...
> Ultimately, you get three actions worth of
Not at all. One unit gets two actions of movement, then a separate unit, in a
separate activation, gets two actions of movement (one is the "disembark"). If
the squad was NOT in the vehicle, then the vehicle could spend two actions in
movement and the squad two actions in movement and there would be no issue,
right? In this case the squad is moved by the vehicle, but that's pretty much
the WHOLE POINT of putting troops in APCs... to get extra movement distance
(well, and to protect them from arty, but that isn't such a big deal in an
average SG game).
I think you're getting caught up in the idea that there is somehow something
wrong with a squad taking its actions after it has been moved by an APC. It
makes sense to me that in a five minute period an APC carrying a squad of
troops could travel 300 meters, the squad could unload, and run 50 or 60
meters on their own. That isn't in any way excessive.
More importantly, it's what the rules say you can do:)
> The way I usually run it: Embark/debark
But that means to embark, you have to activate both the squad and the vehicle
at the same time, to spend their actions. Either that breaks the turn
sequence, or you can only embark or disembark by using command actions to
activate both units.
So, you have vehicle activates, moves
> or fires, debarks troops. Troops, then
But then your side has just had four actions... You could fire the vehicle,
disembark the troops, and fire the troops... That's too many actions all in
one activation. The only other way you can have two units fire at the same
time like this is if your platoon commander transfers actions to them.
Keeping the troop actions and the vehicle actions separate eliminates this
problem.
What happens if troops want to embark on a vehicle that has no actions left?
Say the vehicle shoots and then moves 6" over next to an infantry squad hiding
in some bushes. In a five minute period, the APC fired its gun once, drove 60
meters, and because of that the troops standing around outside can't open the
doors and get in? That doesn't make sense.
> 2. When firing at infantry behind a brick
Then you should use the weapons vs. buildings rules...
What happens if the cover is forest?
> A DFFG/5 in DS2 has a 6km range and
Absolutely.
As you pointed out in your other post, pretty much all of the heavy weapons
could have *some* kind of effective anti-infantry role that could be
reflected better than the current rules.
Having said that, the tank in the game we played on the weekend lasted for
almost the entire game. It was immobilized in the first turn, but took maybe a
dozen hits of various kinds before it was finally out of action.
If it had had a much more effective anti-infantry capability, it would
have completely dominated that side of the board, which would have changed the
battle. Maybe that's more "realistic", but I've seen several SG games in
which a tank has run around taking GMS/P after GMS/P hit and suffering
no
ill effects. SG is supposed to be about infantry battles - if we make
vehicle HW's more effective, we have to keep that in mind, or a single tank
will dominate...
Anyway, this is a good set of threads so far. Lots of good suggestions!
TomB said:
> >Ultimately, you get three actions worth of
Adrian rebutted:
> Not at all. One unit gets two actions of movement, then a separate
Correct, but that's an artifact of the turn sequence. If you follow it, you
get absurd results. Picture a race between grav APCs. The red one pours on the
hydrogen and zooms off at top speed, moving down the track. The green one also
zooms off, but then slams to a stop, whereupon troops jump out and run past
the speeding grav vehicle. No, sorry, I don't buy it.
I think it would make more sense to say it costs an action for both the squad
and the vehicle; but if you don't want that, then charge the VEHICLE one
action.
> In this case the squad is moved by the
Not in one turn. If you keep your troopies in APCs for several turns, then
they will move farther than they could if they dismounted and ran.
> More importantly, it's what the rules say you can do :)
<grin> And as Jon keeps saying, "Play the...
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:27:10 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> For
Okay, but aren't you then getting three actions with two squads out of one
player's activation? Admittedly this is far less of a problem because you have
overwatch rules, but for players playing without overwatch, won't this cause a
problem? Move a squad, embark, move? Again, it brings up my point that an
organic vehicle is still penalized for being part of the squad when it should
probably get a bonus. In that case they could move and embark, and that would
be it.
Another question: if a squad moves and embarks, and the vehicle then moves,
shouldn't that trigger Reaction Fire as per the regular SG2 rules?
These two points (three actions for one activation, and the reaction fire
question) are why I'm hesitant to jump in and use the same rule. Note that
it's probably _less_ broken than the rules as they stand.
> Of course, another interesting
Then you have four actions for one activation, which I think is really pushing
it: squad moves, squad embarks and vehicle fires, vehicle moves.
If you allow the vehicle to fire while the squad embarks, shouldn't you allow
the vehicle that's part of a squad to fire while the squad embarks? And if so,
doesn't this basically break one of the most basic rules of the game: a squad
has two actions, and if half the squad is going to spend an action doing
something while the other half isn't then tough? I mean, a squad embarking
while the vehicle fires would be like allowing half a squad to reorganise
while the other half fires.
If we go back to first principles, SG2 squads don't do anything. It's the
squad leader that does everything (motivate the troops or do something
himself). If that's the case, you are still far better off having your
vehicles as separate squads instead of part of the squad.
The bookkeeping question is probably not a major one as most people could
probably keep this in their heads _if_ you require the vehicle to be the
next thing to activate for that player.
> 1. Range bands are multiplied by weapon
That would be, what, a maximum range of 3000m? Sounds fairly realistic. If you
used 24" range bands you get 1200m, which is far less than realistic but still
"doable".
> 2. When firing at infantry behind a brick
<<snippage>>
> I'd give the
A small shack is a point target. Fire at the shack and treat like the troops
are in a building/vehicle.
Extend this to walls being a point target (not that big a stretch). What would
a standard brick wall be in size? Size 1? Size 2?
However, what if you've got troops in foxholes? Even if you're nasty and only
give a prepared foxhole position a cover shift of 1, you still see the problem
you described (especially if the squad is In Position), and in this case I
don't think letting the armour fire at the foxhole as though it were a point
target is warranted.
But as I said, the rules already cover this: throw HE at the troops using the
open sight rules for artillery.
> Or, do what
*L* Okay, so you _are_ on the same page as me! *L*
> A DFFG/5 in DS2 has a 6km range and
Then perhaps we need to come up with a SG2 artillery burst radius and impact
for this so that the DFFG can fire as per open sight artillery rules. I would
think a 3" radius would be sufficient (but you may disagree). However the
impact should be a D12 at least.
Oh, one thing. I wouldn't require two actions to fire a direct fire weapon at
infantry using the on table artillery rules on page 47. I'd let it be one
action.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:35:39 -0500, Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
wrote:
> These two points (three actions for one activation, and the reaction
I'll add this: ..._less_ broken than the rules as they stand, if you
have vehicles as part of the squad.
In fact, I find the game works just fine if you do _not_ have vehicles
as part of the squad.
There are, in fact, times when the rules -- as written -- make sense. If
you
make a vehicle part of an anti-tank gun (ala WW2) unit for towing
purposes,
the rules as written work fine. I use this in _Hardtack_ to represent
the horse team of a gun crew. It works just fine.
> Correct, but that's an artifact of the turn sequence. If you follow
yes and no. you can get absurd results, if you try to have races between
armoured vehicles, for example...;)
that's an example of pushing the rules to cover a situation for which they
were clearly not designed... and so they break or don't make sense.
Picture a race between grav APCs. The
> red one pours on the hydrogen and zooms off at top speed, moving down
This is *also* an artifact of the turn sequence.
Let's look in more detail. We hold your race, according to the Stargrunt rules
and using the turn sequence, activations, and vehicle movement (even assuming
we were using Travel movement, giving the vehicles their maximum possible
movement for the turn) and no command reactivations. What happens? In that
race, in one turn (lasting approx 5 minutes, maybe), the first grav APC would
be able to travel 480 meters, at which point it would come to a halt. The
other grav APC zooms up next to it, 480 meters away from the starting line.
The infantry leisurely gets out, and saunters ahead another 60 meters.
Are those distances possible in 5 minutes? Of course they are.
Is this situation silly, considering that this was supposed to be a race?
Sure.
But that is exactly what would happen if you play the rules.
And yes, I'm fully in support of the "play the game, not the rules" mentality,
but you have to look at what the rules are trying to represent in this case,
not what should be possible in situations the rules are NOT designed for.
The Grav APCs in question, could probably zoom off at hundreds of kilometers
per hour and travel thousands of meters in that five minute period, and
CERTAINLY the infantry wouldn't be jumping out and running ahead in that case.
But that isn't what the Stargrunt movement system is trying to represent... It
is not going to work for a passenger car driving down the highway at 120kph,
but it is intended to work for an APC, in battle, making *small* movements
from cover to cover, jinking around the battlefield, etc etc.
"Realistically", in a five minute period, a vehicle could move further than
vehicles do in an average Stargrunt game turn, looking at maximum possible
movement rates.
BUT...
a) there have to be some limits on vehicles, or they'd move around the entire
board in a 25mm stargrunt game virtually at will, and that would be too much
of an advantage;
b) everything else in the game is limited by the nature of the turn
sequence... so for example you have the situation where the more "realistic"
speeding vehicle, driving 60", drives by 10 enemy squads who can't do anything
about it because they've already been activated that turn... The mechanics of
the turn sequence are part of the game. Part of the "balance" here is that
vehicles just can't move too far, which works fine in play.
BUT, if you create further restrictions on what infantry getting in or out of
vehicles can or can't do, you make things *even more* unrealistic...
If the vehicle had to spend the action to disembark the infantry, then what
you're saying is that an APC is limited, in a roughly 5 minute period, to
driving 120 meters, depositing infantry, and doing nothing else. Now, *that*
is absurd.
And this doesn't address the issue of breaking the activation sequence, which
is what Tom's method does.
> I think it would make more sense to say it costs an action for both
Nope. I don't buy it. If the infantry is moving, they're the ones who should
be paying the cost of moving.
If we assume that stuff happens more or less "simultaneously" in the turn,
then the APC crew should be able to do stuff while the infantry inside are
getting in or out. Fight, for example, or plan their next movement bound. This
gets represented by the fact that the crew can fight and move, while the
infantry gets in or out, etc.
> In this case the squad is moved by the
Gotta disagree with you. Yes, in one turn.
A troop carrying vehicle has to be able to travel further than 120 meters and
disembark its infantry in a five minute period...
If you keep your troopies in APCs for several turns,
> then they will move farther than they could if they dismounted and
If the turn sequence represented short fixed-period turns of 30 seconds,
I'd agree with you. But the time period is much more abstract than that. As
Jon points out in the "Timescale" section of the book,
"...the timescale is... pretty irrelevant to normal play; most real combat
consists of sudden bursts of frantic firefight, separated by long periods of
movement, scouting, observation and general inactivity."
And so on.
I think we've established that the maximum movement distances possible, even
in the best conditions, using the Stargrunt rules are absurdly short (half a
kilometer in five minutes in a Grav APC on a racetrack... people can run
faster than that, even carrying gear...). So, what gives? Movement in the game
is abstracted, and consists of these sudden bursts of activity and the long
periods of scouting, inactivity, observation, etc, that Jon outlined. Is it
reasonable to suggest that within that abstract period of time, the exact
order in which movement and disembarking happens doesn't really matter? I
think so. Could a vehicle reasonably move 240 meters? Sure. Could it drop off
troops first, and then move 240 meters? Sure. Could it travel 240 meters and
then drop off troops? Sure. Those are ALL reasonable, in the rough time period
represented by a game turn.
***************************************
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:35:27 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> And yes, I'm fully in support of the "play the game, not the rules"
I'm on Adrian's side on this argument.
> If the vehicle had to spend the action to disembark the infantry, then
That's not including other absurdities in the vehicle rules. You can't move
that GEV tank at top speed (top _game_ speed, that is, which is a
fraction of realistic top speed) and fire its main gun. That GEV tank can move
120 metres
in 5 minutes and fire its main gun, or it can go 240 metres and _not_
fire its gun. Hey, what if you want to fire the hull mounted machine gun, too?
Can't move the GEV tank because both fire actions eat up the vehicle's two
actions per activation.
> Is it reasonable to suggest that within that abstract
In fact, I've always found SG2 only makes any kind of sense if you look at
what happened in an entire turn and not on a per activation basis. For that
matter, it makes more sense to look at what happened in an entire game.
Take, for example, the idea of an APC driving up to within 60 metres of a
squad, loading the troops while giving covering fire, and then driving away.
This could _easily_ be done in 5 minutes.
It can't be done in an SG2 turn, without a command reactivation via the
Transfer Action. The APC is activated. It moves (1 action). It fires. End of
activation. The squad is activated. It moves (1 action). It has one action
left do do something while in the vehicle. End of activation. Next turn. The
APC is activated. It moves (1 action). The only way this makes any kind of
sense is while crossing the turn barrier.
I've been giving vehicles a lot of thought. While Jon deliberately hobbled
them in order to make SG2 an infantry heavy game, I have been thinking of
trying SG2 as a tank heavy game. I thought that with 6mm figures it should be
possible to run SG2 in centimetre scale as a tank-only affair.
Unfortunately there are a lot of issues to overcome. I have a good idea of
what they are, and adding them into regular SG2 would go far towards making
vehicles more realistic (and more powerful). It will be interesting to see if,
when added,
they really _do_ overpower the game.
From: Allan Goodall agoodall@att.net
> them in order to make SG2 an infantry heavy game, I have been thinking
Another convert! Long live the Progressive 6mm Popular Revolutionary Front!
Down with the 25mm Enemies of the Proletariat!
<vbg>
> At 4:13 PM -0400 7/17/02, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Phooey...We will crush your tiny bodies under the treads of our larger
vehicles!
From: Adrian Johnson adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
> that's an example of pushing the rules to cover a situation for which
My point was that a squad which stops its vehicle, debusses and runs, can get
father (at end of turn) than a squad which spends the same amount of time
driving. Okay, flexible time scale and all that, but that still doesn't make
sense to me.
> If the vehicle had to spend the action to disembark the infantry, then
But that derives from the fact that vehicles in the game are hobbled.
All the guns in AD 2190 are stabilized, so you should be able to drive and
shoot simultaneously, right? But vehicles have to burn an action to fire a
weapon. It would be just as logical to say they have to burn an action to
"fire" their passengers.
Not that it bothers me greatly the way it is--my suspension of disbelief
is pretty flexible.
> And this doesn't address the issue of breaking the activation sequence,
I agree that I'd rather not have the squad and the vehicle activate
simultaneously.
What you might do is say *either* the vehicle *or* the squad has to pay the
action.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:34:28 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> My point was that a squad which stops its vehicle, debusses and runs,
It's a matter of where the time slices end. Think of it this way: you stop the
car. Your wife jumps out and runs towards the store. You move the car forward
into a parking spot 20 feet ahead of her (not because you're a sadist, but
because that spot just opened up. *grin*). For a brief instant, your wife was
ahead of you even though you were in the faster vehicle. That could be the end
of the turn. The next turn, you're in the parking space and she hasn't caught
up with you.
That's how I suspend my disbelief on it, anyway.
> All the guns in AD 2190 are stabilized, so you should be able to drive
Technically they should lose something off their final movement. This is true
in most wargames I've played. It costs so many "action points" to debuss the
passengers. Or, the amount of movement allowed in a turn when you
load/unload
is restricted. Since the distances moved by these vehicles is such a small
part of their movement potential, I don't have much of a problem not
penalizing them. Besides, it makes the game simpler to play.
> I agree that I'd rather not have the squad and the vehicle activate
What needs to be done, really, is a split activation. Both the vehicle and the
squad get two actions. What I'd like to see is a split action situation: you
can activate two units (in this case, a vehicle and a squad) and have them
each take one action. Then, you could easily have the vehicle fire with action
1 while the troops move out. I'm not sure how the bookkeeping would work with
this, and it sounds like a difficult rule to "legislate". It also sounds like
a rule that could easily lead to munchkinism if extended to other situations
(i.e. "I'll activate these two squads and have them each do a fire action.") I
think it also makes things difficult to administer. "Did that squad with one
action left already fire???"
As for vehicles not being able to move and fire, that's a pet peeve of mine.
I'm trying to come up with a "fix" for an all vehicle game.
I thought of a variation on the detached element rules. Say you have a tank
with four crew (Tank Commander, driver, loader, gunner). You could consider
the driver a detached element. The TC transfers an action to the driver
(allowing him two move actions), while still having one action left over to
fire. You may even want to require a communication roll. Sure, they're in the
same vehicle, but they are looking at different displays and separated by
bulkheads and the like. This gives a tank (or any vehicle, by extension) three
actions if two of them are move actions, or two actions otherwise. Not really
much of a break in the game system. This would be a stabilized weapon platform
that could do this, of course. Otherwise, like most WW2 tanks, you just play
as is.
An even simpler answer, though, might be to give vehicles with stabilized guns
a 24" range instead of 12", but they can only spend one action at most moving
(much like any given weapon in a squad may only fire once at the most).
Now, another question: should a vehicle be able to fire all the weapons on the
vehicle with one action? That is, if a vehicle has a hull mounted MG and a
main gun, should it be allowed to fire both with one action? Or if it has a
main gun and a missile launcher, should it be allowed to engage an enemy
vehicle with both for one action? If so, should it be restricted to firing at
the same target with all weapons, like in a squad? A gun-stabilized tank
should be able to fire its main gun and machine gun, and still move, all at
once. I'm willing to let this go, though, for the sake of simplicity.
--- Adrian Johnson <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> But that isn't what the Stargrunt movement system is
I don't think I'm the only one on this mail list that has actually served time
as a dismount in a mechanized
unit on large-scale exercises.
It is NOT uncommon for us to spend _6_hours_ moving 6
km.
This is not because we are moving at a steady speed of 6 kmph.
This is because we are sprinting to a covered position, waiting around for
other elements to move, sprinting again, etc, etc, etc. This is why I get
plenty of sleep on the attack. Waiting to do... not much from a dismount's
perspective.
> a) there have to be some limits on vehicles, or
The obvious counterbalance would be to impair their ability to spot dismounted
troops sitting in a bush
with a big whonking GMS/H launcher and a stack of
missles.
> b) everything else in the game is limited by the
Overwatch rules, which stargrunt.ca has.
Another balancing factor would be to do what DSII has
done to make infantry downright scary: Treat GMS/L as
a size 3 weapon for damage purposes, and issue a couple to each platoon. Plus
make IAVRs more
lethal--they are severely underrated in SGII.
> "...the timescale is... pretty irrelevant to normal
Which proves he knows what he's talking about...
It really boils down to: Stargrunt is an infantry game with vehicle rules
bolted on.
> It's a matter of where the time slices end. Think of it this way:
you stop the
> car. Your wife jumps out and runs towards the store. You move the
This is true
> in most wargames I've played. It costs so many "action points" to
Not really
> much of a break in the game system. This would be a stabilized
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@att.net>
> It's a matter of where the time slices end.
See also Terry Pratchett, The Thief of Time, towards the end of the book when
they're racing the lighting.
> Think of it this way: you stop the
Because I-the-vehicle expended an action to let my passenger debus.
<grin> So you agree with me...
> >What you might do is say *either* the vehicle *or* the squad has to
The more I think about this suggestion (which, for those of you who
are just tuning in, was mine--not trying to make it look like I have a
plurality here), the more I like it. If you want a little more distance, use
the squad's action to debus. If you want your squad to have time to go IP and
start shooting, use a vehicle action to unload them. Simple, easy.
> I thought of a variation on the detached element rules. Say you have
Not necessariily If it was me, I'd have the Driver have a large copy of the
Driver screen plus a smaller copy of the Gunner screen, and the Gunner has the
reverse. Should always be able to see what the other guy is doing so you can
take advantage of it.
What I'm thinking of for FMA Brigade is that an action can be move,
shoot, or shoot-then-move, but not move-then-shoot. Shooting from
the more distant range accounts for instability in movement.
Or...you could say that the driver takes an action, the gunner takes an
action, and the TC, **if unbuttoned**, can pass along an action. This gives
you the incentive to stick your head up where people can shoot it. Although
again, in the 2180's, this will no doubt be absurd.
> vehicle with both for one action? If so, should it be restricted to
Is a squad restricted to that? I thought if you split fire you could
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:11:45 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Is a squad restricted to that? I thought if you split fire you could
Yes, that's true. What I meant was that if you want to fire all weapons with
one action you can, but the limitation is that they fire at one single target.
Firing at two targets with two sets of weapons eating up two actions is also
possible. Should vehicles follow this, or should they be allowed to fire more
independently?