[SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

8 posts ยท Jun 20 2002 to Jun 26 2002

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:37:55 -0400

Subject: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

Anyone have a ref from the book that says GMS/H and GMS/P don't have to
pay the multiplier for being turreted (2 x or 3 x weapon size class?).

I know in DS they are just flat cap points, but is this also true in SG2
according to the rules text?

Someone brought up this point and I don't have an answer.

Plus in SG, an APSW (free) must be pintle, not under armour. How about DS2
APSW? I think it can be presumed under armour right? (or at least, no special
rules for attacking unprotected APSW gunners exist IIRC).

Thanks!

Tomb

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:41:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:

I don't have the SGII book in front of me, so I'm not touching the GMS
question. I've learned my lesson on trying to cite construction rules from
memory.

> Plus in SG, an APSW (free) must be pintle, not under

The exact quote is from page 11, 2nd column, last paragraph.

"All military vehicles are fitted with one "free" APSW
capable of all-round fire; this weapon does not count
toward any weapons fit limitations, or take up any capacity. [This is assumed
to be a machinegun or equivalent, on an external remote mounting. Additional
APSWs may be fitted if desired, but any such extras each occupy ONE capacity
point and DO count towards total weapons fit limitations."

So it's a remote weapon mounted on the top of the turret or simillar location.

Frankly, regardless of what the SGII construction rules say precisely, all my
tanks have remote mounts for their weapons. I'm not a real big fan of fighting
unbuttoned if (and only if) you have the electronic sights to pull off
fighting buttoned.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:15:16 -0400

Subject: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

MessageTomB HTML'd:
> Anyone have a ref from the book that says GMS/H and GMS/P don't have

From: Richard Kirke <richardkirke@h...>

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:26:04 +0000

Subject: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

Tomb?

Not sure where this e-mail came from, so apologies if this is not an
answer to a question...

> Anyone have a ref from the book that says GMS/H and GMS/P don't have to

In SG, page 32, column 2, it doesn't quote cap points for GMS, it just says:
"Guided Missile Systems: GMS/L = 2 GMS/H = 4"

Don't think you can mount a GMS/P on a vehicle (sorry if that was just a

typo...).

> I know in DS they are just flat cap points, but is this also true in

The SG book pretty much says buy DSII if you want to use vehicles. And the
only real difference that I can see (apart from things excluded in SGII) is
the infantry capacities.

> Plus in SG, an APSW (free) must be pintle, not under armour. How about

DSII refers to a free APSW on page 11:

"All Military vehicles are fitted with one "Free" APSW, capable of
all-round
fire; this does not count towards any weapons fit limitations, or take up any
capacity. [This is assumed to be a machinegun or equivalent, on an external
remote mounting. Additional APSWs...."

Hope that that is of help,

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:00:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

> --- Richard Kirke <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Don't think you can mount a GMS/P on a vehicle

Why not?  Since we know it's smaller than a GMS/P, and
a GMS/P takes up 2 cap points, then we can assume
GMS/P takes up 1 cap point.

The more relevant question would be "What crack are you smoking? Why would you
want to do something that stupid??"

From: Richard Kirke <richardkirke@h...>

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:20:14 +0000

Subject: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

> Why not? Since we know it's smaller than a GMS/P, and

Ok, fair enough, but you might be better off paying for the cargo space and
having a whole load of reloads for one operated by a crew member (thus only 1
cap with lots of shots).

> The more relevant question would be "What crack are

Well yes, why anyone would want to mount a GMS system intended for up close
and personal attacks on a vehicle is questionable...

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:21:06 -0400

Subject: RE: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

John said, with reference to GMS/P in DS2:
> The more relevant question would be "What crack are

Which I believe translates to:
"I don't think GMS/P are effective, so why waste capacity on them when
you could carry something useful?" I didn't hear any alternate suggestions,
though.

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:36:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: RE: Re: [SG & DS] Vehicle construction questions

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> John said, with reference to GMS/P in DS2:

Got it in one.

Albeit more tactfully phrased.

GMS/P are not capable of killing enemy vehicles except
as a fluke. Either admit you're not a tank destroyer
and put another SAW on it, or _MAKE_ room for a GMS/L,
which can actually kill something.