[SG] Overwatch

6 posts ยท Nov 10 2002 to Nov 12 2002

From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:25:32 -0500

Subject: [SG] Overwatch

> I wrote:

> [Tomb] Misquote :) (I only ever called OW a single action and a

Adrian responded:

Hang on a minute, if your OW requires only a single action, then couldn't I
fire and go on overwatch?

[Tomb] RTFP (Read the foregoing paragragph I wrote). OW is quite
clearly indicated therein as a fire action.

If that is the case, then that opens the door to breaking the "weapons can't
fire more than once per activation" rule.

[Tomb] Were that the case, yes. Note that was not what I suggested.

s that what you intend to be the case, or did you have some other kind of
limitations on going on overwatch, like:

1. Overwatch is the last action a unit may take in any given activation (if
you go on overwatch, your activation ends).

[Tomb] This isn't a necessary limitation, but any other action will
remove an overwatch counter, so this is usually how you do it. It would be not
terribly useful to place it, then do another action.
(Now, I might bend this to allow comms while on OW, etc but no squad-
style actions - spotting might be appropriate).

2. Overwatch requires only one action. 3. A unit may NOT go on overwatch if it
has already fired during the same activation.

[Tomb] Explicit in what I said originally, OW is a fire action. Since
it is illegal to take two fire activations in one activation, that was
covered.

So, you couldn't go on overwatch and then move. Nor could you shoot and go on
overwatch. You could, however, move and go on overwatch, or go into position
and go on overwatch.

[Tomb] Here, in a short list, is what I'd allow with OW on:
1. Reorg (you can do it while suppressed) 2. Treat wounded (note, this means
the medic isn't also able to fire on OW... every person treating a wounded
teammate I would rule out of OW) 3. Spot (This is part of what OW is!) 4.
Leader using transfer commands or executing comms.

I think that's about it.

I think having overwatch cost one action under these circumstances is
reasonable. I don't think you should be able to shoot and go on overwatch in
the same activation.

[Tomb] You never could. :)

Otherwise, overwatch should indeed cost two actions - to prevent
people shooting and going on overwatch in the same activation...

[Tomb] I don't think I'd want it even under that description. 1 fire
action per activation per figure period.

You might respond "Ok, my rifles fire (action 1), but my SAW goes on
overwatch (action 2)".  This is too complex - keeping track of which
weapon in which squad has fired and which hasn't. I'd rather keep the rule as
simple as possible, and say "the squad is on overwatch or it isn't". That way,
the squad could use its overwatch action to
fire a special weapon (like a GMS/L) if an enemy vehicle came into
view, or its smallarms against an enemy squad.

[Tomb] Utterly and completely disagree. I can fire support weapons
separately, ergo I can go on OW separately. But in the same vein, each costs
an action. SAW goes on OW, 1 action. Rifles go on OW, 1 action. Total, 2
actions. Just like firing SAW and Rifles separately.

[Tomb] Overwatch should be limited to not allow multiple fires from
the same figure in a turn. It should be voided by suppression. It should be
voided by MOST other actions. If split up, it should follow a paradigm similar
to that of split fire (since you are separately commanding some of the troops,
it requires another action to put in place). Adrian, we agree on most of the
details. (And if you'd caught the "fire action" part of my original paragraph,
you'd have realized
that! *grin*).

Tomb.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:02:46 -0500

Subject: Re: [SG] Overwatch

> [Tomb] Explicit in what I said originally, OW is a fire action.
Since
> it is illegal to take two fire activations in one activation, that

It isn't illegal. You can split fire, as you note below. It just gets tricky
to keep track of which of your guys fired in their actiavtion, and which are
being held on OW

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:42:48 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [SG] Overwatch

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

Maybe for you. My squads have designated fireteams, and I place 'em on the
table in fireteam wedges. I wouldn't split fire in other than fireteam manner
(excepting antiarmor weapons, of course) for realism purposes.

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:17:04 -0500

Subject: Re: [SG] Overwatch

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

JohnA said:
> Maybe for you. My squads have designated fireteams,

My squads have designated fireteams too, but most I've seen do not. <g> I
didn't say it would be tough to keep track of which of *my* guys
fired...

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:54:49 -0600

Subject: Re: [SG] Overwatch

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:42:48 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe for you. My squads have designated fireteams,

How do you handle fireteams? Do you still do everything by squads, or do you
treat each fireteam as a separate entity (essentially as what SG2 calls
"a
squad")?

I started to work towards a set of fireteam rules for SG2 but started to feel
that it was going to be more trouble than it was worth. I've long felt that
SG2's squads have fireteams abstracted into them. I'm just curious if you've
come up with formal fireteam rules, or if you just "metagame" the fireteams
(i.e. imposing realistic fire team restrictions in the way you use them on the
tabletop without actually codifying them into rules).

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:30:17 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [SG] Overwatch

> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:

> How do you handle fireteams? Do you still do

METT-T Dependant.

> I'm just curious if you've

The latter. I know how a dismounted squad fights, and I tend to "roleplay" a
bit on this topic.