In the middle of an otherwise highly satisfactory & suspensful game of SG2
tonight, we had a bit of an argument over the firing rules... As follows:
A squad already in position used it's first action to fire regular weapons &
support weapons (an MG & an IPG) at a target squad which was in a gully a few
hundred meters off. They did squat to the target, had nothing in particular to
do with their second action, and the owning player was about to give up when
he realized that the squad had a full set of IAVRs along with, and no vehicles
on the opposing sides.
He used his second action, therefore, to volley all five IAVRs at the same
target, killing one guy & wounding another. The Rules state something like,
"No weapon may be used more than once per activation.", so this slightly
absurd juggling of rifles, support weapons & IAVRs was allowed.
The slight whiff of ripe Limberger drifted across the table, however...
The rules don't say anything like "No figure may fire more than once per
activation."... Should they be amended to read that?
The juggling of weapons that would go on in the above case seems just a bit
odd...
Comments, anyone?
Hi Brian,
<snip>
> The slight whiff of ripe Limberger drifted across the table, however...
yeah, no kidding...
> The rules don't say anything like "No figure may fire more than once
Two comments, based on first thoughts and *not* having my SG rulebook handy.
First, a turn represents a relatively long period of time - 5 mins or
so. If it is enough time for a rifleman to lay down some fire with his rifle,
then gather himself and his kit, and sprint off 100m while dodging, moving
from cover to cover, etc., and get to a new position, then it should be enough
time for him to shoot his rifle, then pull out a single shot rocket and shoot
it.
Having said that, I wouldn't allow it if I was refereeing a game. One figure,
one shot per activation, fullstop. Also, I wouldn't let a squad
have five IAVRs, but that's a matter of taste. Lots of IAVRs in one-off
games leads to silliness like volleyfiring them. Sure a squad might be issued
that many, but not likely for a single firefight. And they're supposed to be
for shooting at vehicles, anyway. A "real" squad leader
might seriously hesitate to order *all* his anti-armour capability
dumped
on a single enemy rifle squad - but a player in a one-off session
doesn't have the same sort of restraint. Unless they "roleplay", as it were.
Besides, if I remember correctly, you CAN'T do that according to the rules,
anyway. I just thought of this now, but I think it says that IAVRs can be
fired as against point targets (one IAVR = one action, just like a
GMS/P)
OR they can be used as a support weapon to support other weapons, like a SAW.
You can either fire one at a time, or more if *used to support rifles* as part
of the squad's regular fire. This produces the situation, agreeably quite
silly, where in a squad of six guys, you could have ONE fire his rifle and the
other five fire an IAVR. But according to the rules, IIRC, you *must* have at
least one "regular weapon" firing to be able to load up on the support
weapons.
Look at this another way, I believe that you are NOT allowed to, in the case
of the squad you mentioned, have the rifles all fire at one target with one
action, and then the squad's TWO support weapons fire at a different target
with the other action. You could fire ONE of the support weapons at a
different target with a separate action. Just like you can't
fire two GMS/P's from a squad in a single action, if the squad had two
GMS/P's attached, even if they were shooting at the same target.
Be nicer to have my book handy, but I'm pretty sure that's the case with
support weapons.
> --- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Having said that, I wouldn't allow it if I was
That's how I interpret the intent of the rules.
Also, I > wouldn't let a squad > have five IAVRs, but
that's a matter of taste. Lots > of IAVRs in one-off
> games leads to silliness like volleyfiring them.
Actually, yes. You very probably would be issued that many for a firefight,
depending on different nation's doctrine. And against heavy armor, they are
supposed
to be volley-fired.
Gentlemen,
To draw a comparison to my own personal experience, we were issued 4 M72's for
each infantry squad, but they were given two a piece to Rifleman no 1 & 3, the
squads "AT" sections;).
It is probable that this will be the case in the future as well as the
military tend to "specialize" each infantry man. As an example.
Norwegian Infantry Squad (Heavy Mechanized)
Squad Leader (Night Vision Goggles & binoculars + radio)
Rifleman 1, M72x2 Rifleman 2, Medikit (more than compresses) Rifleman 3, M72x2
Rifleman 4, 40mm GL Lance Corp, Binoculars, MG Ammo, Night Vision MG 1,
Machinegun, Night Vision MG 2, Plenty of Ammo, Spare Barrel,
So those 5 IAVR's would probably be concentrated among a few men.
But hey its your game and who said it had to be realistic.
mvh
Andreas
I don't really see this as cheesy at all. Since IAVR's are one shot weapons,
they could only do this once. My friends and I use similar tactics regularly.
Remember, one turn in SG is about 5 minutes. That's plenty of time, even in a
combat environment, to fire a volley with a rifle, then shoulder a LAW and
let'r rip.
mrUseless schrieb:
> I don't really see this as cheesy at all. Since IAVR's
The question would then rather be the other way round: Why not allow allow
several shots per round (one shot per activation) for all (or at least most)
weapons? Game balance?
Greetings
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Besides, if I remember correctly, you CAN'T do that according to the
You CAN do it according to the rules. Support weapons maybe fired separately,
you just don't get the firepower die from the rifles. It does state this
explicetly. If I had my book on hand I'd look it up.
> Look at this another way, I believe that you are NOT allowed to, in
We've always alowed multiple support weapons to fire at once. it's doesn't
really make much sense that they can't. YOu don't look at a target and say,
"Ok, Mike you shoot at it now, Brent, you shoot when Mike's done and pray that
it doesn't shoot back while we wait."
> John Atkinson wrote:
I read it as, a weapon may fire once per activation. It does state weapon and
not individual in the book.
> Andreas Ãrlyng wrote:
> Norwegian Infantry Squad (Heavy Mechanized)
What's the point in not making it realistic? I thought that's why we play this
instead of 40K.:)
My thought on squad loadout was to spread out the firepower. If you loose one
trooper you loose his kit, if you disperse your load you decrease the chance
of loosing all your extra kit.
The squad that was used was one of my line infantry squads.
1 Squad leader (AAF/GL + IAVR)
4 Riflemen (AAF/GL + IAVR)
1 SAW (D8) 1 IPG
They're designed for close in fighting. If we played on more open boards
I might swap the IPG for a GMS/P.
Most of my design philosophy for SG and FT is for dispersion of firepower so
that no one kill would cripple the unit.
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> The question would then rather be the other way round:
To me it's just game balance.
> John Atkinson wrote:
I hope it's not the real intent of the rule or else all my troopers will need
2 riffles or more! (just kidding)
--- Andreas_Ørlyng <andreas.orlyng@rikshospitalet.no>
wrote:
> So those 5 IAVR's would probably be concentrated
Depends on doctrine. I mean think about it. In 2183, the radio, binoculars,
and night vision are all built into the helmet and weigh a few ounces each.
Advanced weapons (gauss especially) would probably be less likely to need
spare barrels.
Ammo weight is lower than present due to use of either caseless ammo, binary
propellants, or gauss darts.
Grenade launchers are built into the weapons of many nation's standard
riflemen.
And the IAVRs are pretty compact too--I'm thinking of
the ones on the OUDF infantry for instance. You could more plausibly issue
them to practically everyone.
> Yves Lefebvre wrote:
> >> That's how I interpret the intent of the rules.
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:53:24 -0800
Oh, I wasn't saying that you can't fire support weapons separately.
I was saying that you can fire *one* support weapon separately. If you want to
fire two support weapons, they have to be firing together with the rifles of a
squad, and you use their support die but the squad's quality, rifle impact,
etc.
On page 37 in the book (now that I have it handy), in the section labeled
"INDIVIDUAL FIRE OF SUPPORT WEAPONS"
it says
"When a player desires to fire a support weapon individually, rather than in
support of general squad fire, he must use a separate ACTION to do
so."
(Author's emphasis)
I think that's pretty clear. One action, one support weapon firing
individually.
So, in a squad of 10 troops, using ARs (FP2 each) with two SAWs (support FPd8)
and five troops with IAVRs (support FPd10), you could have a single
fire action with d6 + d8 + d8 + d10 + d10 + d10 + d10 + d10.
If you saved IAVRs, then you could spend your second action and fire one IAVR.
This is, of course, kind of goofy. But that's how the rules are written...
It's the same with GMS/P. If you have two in a squad, you can't fire
them together with a single action at a single target. They require separate
actions also (p34.)
> We've always alowed multiple support weapons to fire at once. it's
Yeah, I know what you mean. But that's how it was written.
Kind of arbitrary, like the "weapons can only fire once per activation" rule.
I assume it was written that way for balance and playability.
Of course, you can always play it differently.:)
> > Having said that, I wouldn't allow it if I was
The rule is really specific, and you're right, it says (again, author's
emphasis) "NO WEAPON MAY BE FIRED MORE THAN ONCE PER ACTIVATION".
So, if each trooper is issued two rifles, you're good to go...
I think the *intent*, as John said, is to limit exactly how much fire can be
dumped out of a single squad per turn. Again, these limits are arbitrary, and
I'm sure they're there for game balance and playability reasons. We place the
limit that each figure can take one fire action per activation, and it works
just fine. If you play the "multiple weapons = multiple shots per figure"
idea, and everybody does it, you'll have a much more lethal game.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing:)
"Err on the side of carnage", as we like to say...
> Also, I > wouldn't let a squad > have five IAVRs, but
Fair enough. Volley fire against heavy armour I can understand. But those
weapons are issued as anti-ARMOUR weapons. They give the rifle squad
it's
anti-big-tough-things punch. The example given in the original post was
about a squad volleying IAVRs at another infantry squad because they were
in cover and rifle/SAW fire missed.
I don't buy it. I think that's cheesy gaming.
In your average SG game, the scenarios are one-offs, so you (as the
player) know you won't have to wait for resupply for an extra 6 hours while an
enemy mechanized battalion runs through your position. You're just worrying
about the 20 minute firefight you're involved with, 'cause that's the extent
of the game. Having players use *all* their ordnance in a
single action - such as firing GMS/P against infantry squads because
your rifles are *just out of range*, is in my book kinda cheesy.
We could take this one step further, and say "why not arm every figure with a
SAW"? That way, ignoring "campaign" type stuff like
logistics/resupply/realism, you get the best dice to throw...
It comes down to taste, really.
I think in one-off games, unless you're trying for a maximum-carnage
type scenario, having high concentrations of IAVRs in infantry squads leads to
a certain degree of silliness.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> I always thought the intent was that if your troops
That makes no damn sense. You do NOT create a higher volume of fire from an
infantry squad by loading them down with more weapons. Switching weapons in a
firefight reduces volume of fire, not increases it.
You give soldiers multiple weapons to increase versatility, not firepower.
ie., a soldier with a rifle and a buzzbomb is capable of engaging tanks OR
infantry. Not both at the same time. Shades of
freakin' Rambo, running around with an M-60 in each
hand.
I can tell you've never fired a weapon.
> John Atkinson wrote:
In real life that's correct. In this particular game system it gets a little
arbitrary. I can fire, then move. But if I stay I can only fire once and that
second section of time is wasted. To me this is one of the big problems with
SG. Allowing a second weapons sytem firing to me corrects a little of
arbitrary cutoffs.
> I can tell you've never fired a weapon.
No I fire a weapon all the time. I just haven't fired a gun.
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >You CAN do it according to the rules. Support weapons maybe fired
Ah ok.:)
> Fair enough. Volley fire against heavy armour I can understand. But
If I had a bunch of infantry in hard cover and I couldn't get any good shot
off with regular rifle fire I think a shot with a rocket to try and punch them
out of cover would be an acceptable use.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> If I had a bunch of infantry in hard cover and I
Rockets are optimized for use against hard point targets. Bunkers are good
targets. Squads spread out hiding behind trees are not good targets.
Having said that, there are shoulder-fired rockets
with incindiary or thermobaric warheads that I'd use against infantry. But
your standard IAVR is a HEAT warhead of limited usefulness against infantry.
On the gripping hand, the problem isn't so much that
he volley-fired the damn things against a target that
wasn't worth it, the problem is that you can't reasonably interpret the rules
to permit you to fire twice in one damn turn.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> > down with more weapons. Switching weapons in a
Games are intended to be a simulation of real life. Or in this case, a
simulation of an extrapolation of what real life would be with different
technology.
In this particular game > system it gets a
> little arbitrary. I can fire, then move. But if I
Not entirely true. You can do plenty with that time. My first suggestion would
be to go into position. As for the arbitary cutoffs, that's good. Arbitrary
cutoffs are what make a game playable. Otherwise you'd actually need 12 years
of military experience to run a platoon in a firefight. Which would disqualify
all but a handful on this list.
It's not a literal section of time. In real firefights, your guys are not
going to sit there and say, "Hey, it's their turn, we'll just sit here."
> > I can tell you've never fired a weapon.
Eh? You a bowhunter or something? 'Coz if that's intended to be a double
entendre, you've got it reversed.
John A. Said:
> the problem isn't so much that
On a related note, if I have a squad of PA and they are all equiped with
Multiple Rocket Packs, how is firing those packs handled if they want to fire
their small arms as well? What is one of the PA has both a support weapon and
a Multiple Rocket Pack? Thanks.
Vietnam and later, LAWs and RPG2s were used effectively in a 'tree burst'
manner producing an effect not dissimilar to Napoleonic cannon balls on sail
masts. Splinters and secondary fragmentation. That is a possible justification
if people do wish to use the IAVR against an infantry target. be innovative.
OG
> -----Original Message-----
> John Atkinson wrote:
Then an IAVR s hould not have a D10 support die, it should have a D4 or a D6
at best. My read in seeing it have a D10 was that it was better then a SAW
against infantry.
> On the gripping hand, the problem isn't so much that
Actually the target was worth it. If he didn't get rid of that one infantry
squad right then, he was going to loose the game. He had one shot at it.
I think you're taking this a little too personally. I made that call that he
could fire the IAVRs as his second action because the rules said WEAPON, the
activation gives you enough time to fire and move 60m, and the thought was
that the squad was laying fire down on the enemy, they noticed that it wasn't
doing enough and they decided to throw a couple of rockets at them. Looking
back I don't allowing them to all shoot one off was a perfect idea but 1 or 2
would have been ok.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Not entirely true. You can do plenty with that time.
And if already in position you can either fall back (creating an interupt to
shoot and not leaving your men a position to shoot next time), throw smoke,
which wouldn't have helped, or twiddle their thumbs.
> > > I can tell you've never fired a weapon.
Actually yes I shoot a bow and I'm pretty good at it.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> And if already in position you can either fall back
Them's the rules. Some days you gotta accept a
sub-optimal solution. I refuse to coutenance doubling
your firepower by switching weapons. It's not consistent with common sense.
Now, if you create a house rule to allow troopers with rifles to fire twice in
an activation, you're good to go.
> > Eh? You a bowhunter or something? 'Coz if that's
Well... That's something I never had the time to learn to do. As someone who
shoots a bow, do you feel that if you put X amount of arrows into a target in
Y amount of time (that amount of time being 1 turn) that you could shoot 2X
amount of arrows in Y amount of time by carrying two bows and two quivers and
switching those weapons halfway through?
What an "activation" with two "actions" represents is not two discrete
segments of time. If you choose to move and fire, you are representing your
troops alternating firing with IMT (Individual Movement
Techniques--crawling or doing short rushes from cover
to cover). Shoot a couple rounds, rush to the next tree while your buddy
shoots a couple rounds. If you choose to fire and go in position, troops are
simultaneously finding better spots to shoot from and shooting at the enemy.
If you choose to just shoot and "waste" the second "action", then your guys
sit in their cover and shoot. Which is a perfectly logical course of action in
some situations.
> Jaime Tiempo wrote:
> > Oh, I wasn't saying that you can't fire support weapons separately.
[snip]
> If I had a bunch of infantry in hard cover and I couldn't get any good
The rules allow you to do that - but you have to fire those rockets *in
the
same action as the rifles and SAWs*. The rifle/SAW dice you lose in this
way represents the shooting your soldiers didn't do while they were switching
weapons.
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >If I had a bunch of infantry in hard cover and I couldn't get any
Which means the rules don't allow you to do this since you have to know this
ahead of time.
In the end it's one man, one shot. No individual may fire more then once in an
activation. Still seems screwy to me.
I think the intent of the rules are plain: No figure can fire more than once
per activation.
But I do see your point. If you are spending all of your time shooting rather
than shooting and doing something else, your fire should be more effective.
If you and the group you game with agree, add a house rule. I think that
allowing double fire is too much, but you could increase the quality of the
unit by 1 if it spends both actions on its fire (represents
extra fire and/or time aiming). Anyway its a suggestion.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
Jumping in at the deep end and half way through but isnt that the same as
doing an aim action before firing or am I getting confused with FMA.
> I think the intent of the rules are plain:
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
When I read them they weren't, not in that way. Esp if you thought along the
lines that if you spend two actions firing you should get some bonus since it
only made sense.
> If you and the group you game with agree, add a house
I was thinking on the double fire and I agree it's too strong which is why my
beleif was that, that was the reason for single fire of a weapon system, and
allowing a secondary weapon to fire alowing for some gamish balancing.
Though not very usefull for elite troops. Perhaps decreasing the range by 1 or
2.
> Paul Owen wrote:
That's FMASk. You get no bonus for doing a two action firing action in SGII