Hi Folks,
I'm going to jump in here as I refereed the game Tom is mentioning, and
thought I might add a bit to the discussion.
> This weekend, we also played an SG2 battle,
The bit of the rules in question is on page 24 of the Stargrunt rulebook.
It discusses transporting infantry. The line in question says:
"Getting troops into or out of a vehicle takes one MOVE action per
squad/unit, during which neither the troops or the vehicle may do
anything else. When disembarking from a vehicle, the troops should all be
placed... they are then free to use their other action to move away, fire, or
whatever. To load troops in, the unit must be moved so that all figures are
within 6" of the vehicle, then one action is spent to get everyone on board.
If loading more than one unit into a large carrier or truck, it takes one
action to get each individual SQUAD embarked, and each may only board when
they are themselves ACTIVATED."
Tom was suggesting that the VEHICLE has to spend an action for a squad to
embark, as well as the squad spending an action. I suggested that the book
doesn't say anywhere that the vehicle has to spend an action, and in fact
pretty clearly states that the action is spent by the squad. The bit of
confusion stems, I think, from the bit of the quote that says "the troops or
the vehicle may do nothing else." Tom was saying that this suggests that the
vehicle is in some way spending an action to embark the troops, since it may
do nothing else. I think it is just an example of ambiguous wording, and
really just means that during the embarcation action, which is spent by the
squad, nothing else may happen with either the squad or the vehicle. But this
is actually a bit misleading, since because of the way the stargrunt turn
sequence and unit activation system works, during the action taken by the
embarking squad, NOTHING else can happen anyway. There is NO situation in the
rules that would allow the vehicle in question to move while a separate unit
was activated and getting on board.
Irrespective of what DS2 does or does not say, that isn't really relevant to
what the Stargrunt rules say, and I can't find any reference to a vehicle
having to spend an action for troops to embark. Am I missing a reference in
the Stargrunt rules here?
Tom suggests that it seems odd for a vehicle to be able to move fully (both
actions spent moving) and then embark or disembark troops who can take a full
move (I believe he means move twice). First, the squad disembarking can't take
a full move. They spend an action disembarking, so could only spend one action
moving. Second, within the context of the somewhat ambiguous time length of a
Stargrunt turn (which we all seem to commonly assume to be roughly 5 minutes),
a vehicle moving isn't going to spend the entire length of the turn moving. It
is assumed that part of the turn is moving, but that includes weaving about,
dodging by different bits of cover, stopping and listening, etc. So, the whole
5 minutes isn't taken up
with moving - there is more time in there to do other stuff (like sit
and listen) and that extra time could be when troops embark, disembark, etc.
> 2) Does it seem sensible to anyone that an
This situation came up several times, and we all agreed it didn't make any
sense, except as an artificial limitation on the rules to prevent vehicles
from dominating the game.
Vehicle weapon range bands are 12" multiplied by the size class of the target,
which in the case of infantry is 1. So, the maximum range of a tank main gun
of any type in Stargrunt is 60" (600 meters), and if the infantry target is in
position in hard cover, would only be 24" (240 meters). This seems awfully
short.
Now, we understand that they are talking about the maximum *effective* range,
not the maximum possible range, but still. Somehow, it doesn't make sense that
a whacking great big gun on a tank could shoot effectively roughly the same
distances as a squad of troops with their rifles...
> 3) When a heavy weapon is fired at a squad
Well, the wording of the "heavy weapons fire against infantry" section on
page 40 is pretty specific. It says FC + Q vs. RANGE, and "add these
up as normal if effective fire is scored, and work out potential hits
accordingly."
It doesn't say "against all members of the squad"... For effect, it says "a d8
is rolled against the Armour of whichever troops take the potential hits"
which most certainly does not say that ALL the troops take the hits.
Now, SHOULD heavy weapons be more effective? Do we want them to be? I maintain
that they should be somewhat more effective, but I don't want the game to
suddenly be dominated by vehicles if they are used.
Where this problem is MOST often seen in our games is when RFAC are used.
An RFAC/1 is roughly equivalent to a .50 cal machinegun. These are
devestatingly effective against infantry, in the "real world", but if you read
the Stargrunt rules strictly, are pretty ineffective vs. infantry.
They would AT MOST do d8 impact hits (because an RFAC/1 is a "heavy
weapon" according to the descriptions on page 29, and heavy weapons vs.
infantry do d8 impact hits). SO, you have the situation where a gauss SAW in
the hands of an infantry squad will do more damaging hits than a.50 mounted on
a parked (and therefore stable) tank. That doesn't make sense.
I tend to give RFAC a boost re impact when it comes to hitting infantry, and
let them use their d10 impact. But even then, it is less than the Gauss SAW
which does d12 impact, and is certainly less than a HAMR which does d12x2 vs.
all targets.
> gunners with that variety of ammo? Or is the
The AAR does d10 impact. The RFAC does d10* impact. Very different.
AAR damage can affect armour class 1 vehicles, using the "small arms vs. point
targets rules". RFAC damage affects all armour classes using the
"major hit/minor hit" system, so it can do between d10 and d10x2 damage
to
all armoured targets. That means an RFAC/1 with a REALLY lucky set of
dice could kill a tank with armour class 5. The AAR can't hurt anything with
armour 2 or better.
However, RFAC vs. Power Armour troops? They are treated according to the rules
as dispersed infantry just like guys in their regular fatigues. I've tried
running games where RFAC hits on PA get their full effectiveness (d10 x 2) vs.
PA, and it seems to work ok. Certainly makes things hot for the
PA...
> Interesting facts:
The NAC players very sportingly set up a big pile of their troops around the
landing pad, watching the game. They had been told that this facility was a
"secure" supply base, and the two NAC platoons were there for some rest and
refitting. Since they were told the troops were there to rest, they decided
that NAC marines and Gurkhas would naturally want to compete in some manner,
and had challenged each other to a soccer game. They had an NAC Marine squad
and a Gurkha squad actually playing the game (and included a ball... a nut of
some kind, I think), using opposed rolls with their squad quality die to see
who was winning... They didn't start moving their units away from the game and
toward the action until the combined
FSE/ESU forces actually started attacking.
It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship. Kudos to the three NAC
players.
And they ended up kicking arse, anyway.... The FSE and ESU were cursed
with some of the most impressively bad luck I've seen, and the NAC side played
very well. Their most severe casualties happened when the FSE tank put a main
gun shot into the top floor of a a building that an NAC squad was using. The
building collapsed, and 7 out of 8 troops in the squad were casualties. Other
than that, they lost a combat walker and ONE Gurkha rifleman (out of three
full platoons, two walkers and two jeeps). The FSE lost about 50% of their
infantry and all but one (out of five) armoured vehicles (they started with
four APCs and a tank). The ESU made out a lot better, losing their combat
walker and a couple of infantry. The FSE really took it on the chin, and the
mass Gurkha close assault was great to watch. The FSE Legionnaire squad at the
receiving end routed, and ran like crazy only to be caught and captured a turn
or so later.
Lots of fun.
***************************************
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:00:08 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> There
That is my argument. I'm in agreement with you, as per my previous post.
> Irrespective of what DS2 does or does not say, that isn't really
Nope, you're not. It's just vague. And while I can see TomB's point in
bringing up DS2 rules for, say, a house rule interpretation of loading and
unloading, it's not relevant to a question involving SG2 rules.
> So, the whole 5 minutes isn't taken up
I agree with you. However, the area I have a problem with is one of vehicles
part of the squad and vehicles that are independent. If a vehicle is part of a
squad and just sitting somewhere parked, it would only have one action left
after the squad embarks (and this is assuming the squad was already within 6"
of the vehicle once it activated). If the vehicle is independent, a squad
could move up to the vehicle with one action, embark with another, and the
vehicle would _still_ have two actions. This penalizes vehicles that are
part
of a squad, even though -- technically -- they should be less penalized
as they are part of the squad. Training, communication, etc. should result in
closer integration with a vehicle that's part of a squad.
How does _that_ inconsistancy get fixed? One way is to make all vehicles
independent, and the problem essentially goes away. Another is to assume all
vehicles are part of a squad unless it's something special like VTOL
transports, or something.
I see Tom's point, but I don't think the rules have an easy fix for it.
> This situation came up several times, and we all agreed it didn't make
Part of the problem is the short vehicle range bands. Another is the D12 range
band die being the top end. I suggested making the range band die shift open,
in my previous e-mail. Another thing that would be interesting to test
is using 24" range bands for vehicles.
> Now, we understand that they are talking about the maximum *effective*
Well, if you're talking about a modern style tank gun firing HE ammunition,
then I'd go to the "On Table Artillery Fire" rules on page 47, giving that
tank essentially unlimited range on the table to hit the infantry. The rules
for vehicles firing at dispersed targets is usually meant for trying to hit
infantry with armour piercing projectiles. Of course, how would you then
describe a DFFG shot? If it's a big ball of fire, then I could see coming up
with artillery type stats for it and using the On Table fire rules to handle
it.
I don't think it's a big deal for tank guns if you use the On Table Artillery
rules; let the tank switch to HE fire against infantry. It is an issue with
RFAC/1s which should fire like a big machine gun. It is an issue with
some of
the other sci-fi ammunition.
This is a good place for a house rule.
> Now, SHOULD heavy weapons be more effective? Do we want them to be? I
Jon describes this effect as the heavy weapon spraying shrapnel from a nearby
ground burst, etc., like what might happen if an APFSDS shot impacted the
ground nearby troops. I would argue that if you want vehicles to be more
effective against infantry, let them treat anti-infantry projectiles out
of a tank gun as on table artillery. The rules for making them more effective
are already there.
> I tend to give RFAC a boost re impact when it comes to hitting
All heavy weapons are hampered in range. The biggest issue is the 12" x size
class of the target for the range band size. The size of the gun has nothing
to do with it (other than to give more impact). How about a range band equal
to: 12" x (weapon class size + target size)? That would give RFAC/1s 24"
range
bands and RFAC/2s 36" range bands against infantry.
RFAC/1 and RFAC/2, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode need to be
modified somewhat. They need support weapon stats (instead of the D8 impact
versus dispersed targets) as well as more realistic range band sizes. Leave
HVCs, HKPs, and MDCs as they are, though HVCs can be treated as on table
artillery
when firing HE-style projectiles at infantry. DFFGs should probably have
a
burst radius for an anti-infantry mode using the on table artillery
rules.
> However, RFAC vs. Power Armour troops? They are treated according to
I've
> tried running games where RFAC hits on PA get their full effectiveness
RFACs, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode are broken. They are
essentially a hybrid weapon (can take on some armour, if needed, but are very
good against infantry). This needs to be addressed. Perhaps my range band
idea, above, would work. Or we just need to give these weapons new support
weapon stats.
How did you do major/minor impact against PA when PA should be treated
as infantry. Wouldn't a "minor" hit just be a suppression and a "major" hit
just be D10 impact? Or did you make a "minor" suppression only and a "major"
D10 x 2 impact versus PA?
> It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship. Kudos to the
Sounds like a great game!
Hi all,
> I agree with you. However, the area I have a problem with is one of
That makes sense. I have to admit that this situation never occurred to
me. We *never* play vehicles as part of the squad they're carrying - I
always have them as separate units. Once an AIFV dumps its squad, it is
supposed to be able to *fight* in support of the infantry, or on its own if
necessary. Can't do that if the vehicle and the squad have to share just two
actions... I can see perhaps abstracting this a bit in a smaller scale game
(DS for example), but in a Stargrunt scale game, I wouldn't want to play with
vehicles as an integral part of a squad. I think it would penalize them a lot.
> Part of the problem is the short vehicle range bands. Another is the
Both are interesting ideas, worth trying out.
> Well, if you're talking about a modern style tank gun firing HE
That's a great idea.
> describe a DFFG shot? If it's a big ball of fire, then I could see
That too.
> All heavy weapons are hampered in range. The biggest issue is the 12" x
range
> bands and RFAC/2s 36" range bands against infantry.
certainly that would make the ranges of the heavy autocannon weapons more
"realistic" vs. infantry. Would this apply to RFACs, HELs and GACs, or to all
heavy weapons? And would it apply when shooting at infantry, or at all
targets?
If against all targets, then a size 3 weapon shooting at a size 4 target would
have 84" range bands, which seems a bit much...
> RFAC/1 and RFAC/2, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode need to be
do you mean "leave the impact effects as they are", or "leave all the
effects as they are"? If we increase the range effectiveness of RFAC/1
but not HKP, that would lead to oddness...
> when firing HE-style projectiles at infantry. DFFGs should probably
yeah. and/or maybe a morale effect too.
we play with flame throwers as weapons that can be used in battle OTHER than
just in close assaults. They are effective in the first range band
only, and being shot by one causes a terror-based morale check
immediately with a hefty penalty. I could see something similar (though not
quite as
dramatic) happening with a DFFG shot - they are scary... a lot more
"dramatic" than an HKP shot which a trooper might not even notice unless it
hits something close by. You'd notice great big fiery explosions...
> RFACs, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode are broken.
Yes. Very much so.
It doesn't make sense that an infantry carried SAW would be more effective vs.
infantry than a vehicle mounted.50 cal...
> would work. Or we just need to give these weapons new support weapon
normally I shy away from adding something to the rules as big as a whole new
set of stats for most of the heavy weapons, but in this case, it makes sense.
A new project for stargrunt.ca, perhaps...
Tom? :)
> How did you do major/minor impact against PA when PA should be treated
hit just
> be D10 impact? Or did you make a "minor" suppression only and a "major"
D10 x
> 2 impact versus PA?
I always give the RFAC at least a d10 impact vs. PA, but when we played it
with "full effectiveness", we said that a minor hit was a suppression, and a
major hit was d10x2 impact. It seemed to work ok.
> It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship. Kudos to the
Lots of fun.
And nice to be able to play on a table big enough that we could actually have
three platoons per side running about and not get in each others' way all the
time.
***************************************
Adrian said:
> That makes sense. I have to admit that this situation never
Concur. Remember that even though the unit's official TO may list the APC as
part of a squad, operationally (ie for SG purposes) it can be separate.
Same as with my IF platoon HQ. TO says it's one squad plus attached FAO.
Functionally, though, it's a weapons squad (sometimes two), a
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:00:50 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> That makes sense. I have to admit that this situation never occurred
Me neither. When I first played I didn't want to be bothered with the clunky
detached element rules, so I decided to make the vehicles independent. I just
kept them that way. I suspect, though, that Jon went the other way and mostly
had vehicles as part of the squad. The rules sort of seem to imply this as
standard.
> Well, if you're talking about a modern style tank gun firing HE
Thanks! One change: artillery firing over "open sights" takes up two actions.
Change this to one action for these vehicle weapons as they are essentially
direct fire weapons.
> certainly that would make the ranges of the heavy autocannon weapons
Yeah, it probably is a bit much.
The simplest solution is 24" range bands. There are other permutations that
would make it more "realistic" but cause more math: 12" + (target class
x weapon class) for instance.
How about 12" x (greatest of target class and weapon class)? An RFAC/1
would
still have 12" range bands, but an RFAC/2 against infantry would have
24"
range bands. An HVC/5 would have 60.
Hmm... I'm really beginning to like _this_ idea!
> RFAC/1 and RFAC/2, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode need to be
Sorry, "leave the impact effects as they are" but change the range bands.
Definitely any range band change has to propogate to the other vehicle
weapons, too.
> when firing HE-style projectiles at infantry. DFFGs should probably
Oh, it's a terror weapon all right! Yes, good catch! And we don't even need a
new rule for it!
> It doesn't make sense that an infantry carried SAW would be more
No, it doesn't.
> normally I shy away from adding something to the rules as big as a
Me too, on both counts. I think it's necessary, though, to give vehicles their
proper due in the game.
> I always give the RFAC at least a d10 impact vs. PA, but when we played
That doesn't sound bad...
> Lots of fun.
way
> all the time.
What was the table size?
Re wimpy tanks As I understand it, there are two parts to this. Part one
*might* be that the tank carries AT not AP rounds. Tom has already covered why
this applies to eg HKP but not RFAC etc Part two, and as I understand it the
key part, is knowing where the little beggers are so you can shoot them. The
best tank commanders keep their head out so they can see. But is this going to
be an issue in 200 years, or will our guys cruise around with 360 degree
displays and
IR/radar/whatnot sensors that can see thru the leaves to pick out that
grunt at 800meters? If that's the case, infantry is going to have a much less
enjoyable time.