1. Yes 2. No, separate action required to fire each support weapon. 3. Heavy
Support weapons cannot be fired to support small arms fire, but SAWs & IAVRs
can. Support weapons are ground mounted and use 12" bands vs infantry and must
fire individually. Squad support weapons are SAWs, grenade launchers & IAVRs
that use normal quality range bands, so have EXACTLY the same range as small
arms.
Eg1. Heavy RFAC/1 groundmount fires using Quality + FC or FP die.
Eg2. Squad with 1 SAW fires using Quality + small arms FP die + SAW FP
die
(ie: reg (d8) + 4 x fp:2 rifles (d8) + gatling SAW (d10).
4. Potentially, you can fire 1 rifle (d4 fp) + 8 IAVRs (8 x d10
fp).
You must fire at least 1 small arms to use multiple IAVRs, otherwise they fire
individually as support weapons (1 per action). Firing them all at once leaves
you no antiarmour capability though... 5. Can't remember, but I think that's
right.
6. It could happen, that's why the + threat level. +5 threat
(leader
killed + airattack) hurts.
7. At the time the condition was met. So the untreated casualty is not counted
when they are injured, but will count against all future confidence checks
until they are treated.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
My additional comments marked by [Bri]
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D47074793@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
:
> Fully Effective Hit (p.35) and one for the leader loss). It was on the
> 3) If a squad fires it's weapons, but only the two support weapons
It occurs to me that I fouled up the question here. I meant to
ask...Well...I
guess the point of the question was: If two different support weapons were to
be fired, WITHOUT small arms support in the same action (if it can be done),
whose IMPACT value do you use (not FP as I originally, and mistakenly asked)?
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:16:56 -0700, thwaak <thwaak@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It occurs to me that I fouled up the question here. I meant to
Ah! Okay, THAT question I don't think has been asked.
Hmm... That's a really good question.
I don't think it's actually in the rules which to use. In fact, the rules are
very vague on multiple support weapons.
I would do it this way, only as a referee having to make a spot decision (not
that there's any rule on it). I would take the weapon with the highest FP and
use its impact. If the two weapons have the same, I'd either roll randomly
each time to see which one applies, or allow the firer to choose.
The reason for basing it on FP? If FP is a measure of the volume of fire
hitting a target, then it would seem to me that the highest FP weapon is the
one doing the bulk of the damage.
The other way around is to roll randomly per casualty to find out what hit the
figure. This may be preferable to your players, but I think it would slow
things up.
Again, just some suggestions...
In message <jfecetkjo122aktndoh1dsvgehtj4crve8@4ax.com>, Allan Goodall writes:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:16:56 -0700, thwaak <thwaak@pacbell.net> wrote:
They don't let you do it. There are only two ways you can use support weapons:
1) Any number of them may be fired in conjunction with small arms fire. 2) A
single support weapon may be fired.
If this is not the case, please let me know what part of the rules I am not
finding. Page 37, "Individual Fire of Suport Weapons:"
"When a player desirens to fire a support weapon individually, rather than in
support of general squad fire, he must use a seperate ACTION to do so."
I see nothing anywhere that would allow you to take a fire action
> -----Original Message-----
wrote:
> >
-----End Original Message-----
If you are firing more than one support weapon, then you are not firing it
INDIVIDUALLY, you are firing it as part of a group. :-)
It just seems hokey to me to allow 7 SAWs and 1 rifle to fire in an action,
but not 2 SAWs without a rifle to fire in an action.
---
> If this is not the case, please let me know what part of the rules I
This makes a good case for small squads, eh? If you have a 5 man squad with a
GL, a SAW and 3 assault shotguns, you can fire both support weaopns. If you
have a 10 man squad of 2x5man teams, then you're stuck unless you want to burn
a higher echelon reactivation. Of course, in that it's supposed to model real
life... I can't see the SAW gunner sulking and refusing to fire just because
the two
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Laserlight wrote:
> > If this is not the case, please let me know what part of the rules I
It makes a good case against loading your squads to the gills with support
weapons. But even in the case above, the ONLY limitation is that you cannot
fire all support weapons individually. You can fire one with the squad and one
seperately, with one activation.
It seems to me the whole system represents not so much the limitations of the
support weapons guys, as the limitations of the squad leader. "you, fire at
that.. you, fire at something over there.. you, fire at yonder thingy, you..
er.. did I forget anyone? no? fire!
It doesn't strike me as altogether unrealistic that a squad leader can't
direct over two individual engagements.
Also, when using the alternate detachments rules proposed on the web, you
could have a SAW detachment using it's one activation to fire, and the squad
with both GL's taking one activation to fire each GL, and ot fire with the
rest of the squad?
Cheers,
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D4707479B@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
The rules make no case for firing support weapons as a group without small
arms fire. I'm not stating that this is necessarily logical,
In message
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1010425143749.1105I-100000@cc5127-a.deven1.ov.nl.home
> .com>, Derk Groeneveld writes:
You could almost do this with the detachment rules as listed. Detach a SAW
gunner or team with the squad leader. They fire and reactivate
> -----Original Message-----
-----End Original Message-----
I'm not intending to argue either, just point out an oddity in an otherwise
fine game.
Seems like a canidate for Murphy's Rules (Steve Jackson's collection of
strange rules in various games).
Maybe it is covered in "don't play the rules, play the game".
---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> In message
True. But I think it's a bit silly to make the squad leader stay with then
stationary (supporting) detachment...
Cheers,
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D4707479C@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
Well, I agree to a certain extent-- note my recent post showing the
standard use of two M249 SAWs together in the US Army field manual.
Perhaps someone knowledgeable could discuss real-world use of support
weapons together? Some combinations seem logical, such as multiple SAWs
covering an area, while others do not, such as a SAW and an IAVR.
Then again, it depends on just how you envision the firing occurring--
is it a tactical deployment to maximize fire (such as the SAWs above), or is
it a single combined attempt to knock out a single target (multiple IAVRs at a
point target)?
Perhaps a simple house rule would be you can combine multiple support
weapons only if the weapons are identical-- 2+ SAWs, 2+ IAVRs, etc...
I feel that this would also somewhat limit gamesmanship abuses of
I was viewing it as follows:
If the unit is whole (no detachments) and firing at one target, then the
combined fire (rifle + support weapon(s)) would all be rolled at one
time. I.e. disallow an undetached unit from firing more than once at a given
target in an activation; if you want multiple attacks against a given target,
you would have to use another unit or detachment.
If the unit is whole and firing at more than one target, then the combined
fire (rifle + support weapons(s)) would be rolled together for each
target separately.
If the unit has a detachment, then the main unit's fire is rolled separately
from the detachment.
Squad Alpha is moving through a forest. They come upon a clearing and spot an
enemy unit on the other side of the clearing. They ALL fire at the enemy unit.
I find it unlikely that some would fire while some wait, then others would
fire, with no additional direction.
Same situation as above, but Corp Lands and Pvt Aspel spot a machine gun nest
and choose to fire their SAWs at the larger threat rather than at the regulars
the rest of the squad is firing at.
The enemy regulars retreat and Sgt. Mackie directs the SAWs to stay put and
suppress the machine gun nest (detachment) while the rest of the squad tries
to get into better firing possition.
If this is unrealistic, please explain and provide an example of what should
happen.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> On 25-Apr-01 at 09:39, Derk Groeneveld (derk@cistron.nl) wrote:
Detach
> > a SAW gunner or team with the squad leader. They fire and
True, but he could fire his rifle and then you wouldn't have a rules issue.:)
In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D4707479D@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>,
"Be
> ll, Brian K (Contractor)" writes:
This is a matter of what you feel a squad firing in SG2 represents. This isn't
outlined in the rules, and so is a somewhat subjective concept. It's certainly
true in modern tactics that squads will oraganize themselves into multiple
parts to fire at the same target.
US Army field manuals are the best resource I have available about
real world tactics, so here's another example, this from FM 7-9,
"Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad." The Squad Attack battle drill shows the
squad splitting in half to divide fire at a single target.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/ch4.htm#d1a
In particular, this image:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/fig4-3.gif
Whether or not this is represented in SG2 by a single squad firing once in its
entirity or dividing its fire is really a matter of opinion. I don't recall
anything in the rules which would lead me to believe one method is preferable
to the other.
> Squad Alpha is moving through a forest. They come upon a clearing and
You're assuming a "wait" between fire, which may not exist-- SG2 has a
fairly lax time scale. I don't think anybody seriously considers it to be the
case that the second half of the squad is smoking cigarettes and watching
their wristwatch waiting for their time to fire. The question should simply be
whether or not "double fire" at a target is a reasonable tactic and gives a
reasonable effect. In my opinion, it does seem to resemble real world tactics
and intended effect (better chance at suppression).
> Same situation as above, but Corp Lands and Pvt Aspel spot a machine
I don't feel this is unrealistic, but I do feel that it is distinctly
> On Wed, 25 April 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> The rules make no case for firing support weapons as a group without
Upon re-reading the rules, you are correct.
I think there is a hole in Jon's logic when it came to support weapons. The
rules, as written, seem to make the consistent assumption that a squad is made
up of troopers, a leader and a support weapon. Occasionally there will be a
second support weapon, like a GMS, for specific uses but it won't be used
against infantry.
This is just my interpretation of what I see as Jon's thinking in the rules.
Multiple support weapons firing isn't included in the rules at all. A couple
of years ago I presented the situation I created for my Plasma Ambush
scenario: a bunch of mercs in 4 man squads wearing Power Armour but armed only
with plasma guns conduct an ambush against infantry and vehicles. That's 4
support weapons in a squad of PA.
I asked how people would allow these to be fired, assuming it wasn't cheesy.
The rules I used, out of a consensus opinion on the list, was as follows:
Against infantry - Quality Die + FP Die for each plasma gun.
Against vehicles - Quality Die + FP Die for one plasma gun, with each
gun in the squad firing one at a time.
This isn't as cheesy as it sounds. It gave squads with D8 + D6 + D6 + D6
+ D6. Lots of nasty damage... if they hit. They often didn't hit beyond
the 3rd range band.
The conclusion, though, was that there should be nothing stopping a squad
consisting only of support weapons from all firing with one action. Nor should
there be a problem with two support weapons firing at one target, and two at
another. In practice, this worked great, but all figures were using the same
support weapon, so the FP and Impact dice were all identical.
The implication of the passage you cite in the rules is that a squad has one
support weapon. The rules don't actually cover more than one support weapon in
a squad. The rules don't allow them to fire separately, nor do they prevent
it.
The consensus at the time was to allow it (albeit this was at a time when the
SG2:FT ratio was much lower than it is now, and there wasn't a huge amount of
discussion on it).