Last night we played SG for the first time. We played the Los's Flug rescue
scenario sans vehicles. Went pretty well, I screwed a few things up (I was
referee) but everyone still had fun.
The one thing that occured that really bothered me, the Kra'Vak player broke
his six guys up, sending them 5 different
directions and then used the re-org rules to get them all
back together. I can't seem to find anything that says this is illegal,
however, it doesn't feel right. Is this legal?
Hmmm.
Rules Lawyer Mode (Full Power Armor): It appears that by the writ, it is
possible. However, SG p.11 under Unit Integrity indicates that when a unit is
disorganized "on its next activation, the first action by its leader must be a
REORGANISE action
in which the player must move any out-of-integrity
figures by the minimum necessary distances to regain integrity. While a unit
is disorganized, it may do
nothing (except react if close-assaulted)." So it is
possible, but has no advanatge. To move the unit out of integrity uses an
action. The unit may do nothing except reorganize on its next action. Exit
Rules Lawyer Mode.
Why was he doing this? Flavor? To be harder to hit? If it was to be harder to
hit, it would do this (making the opponent target individual figures), but it
would also eat both the unit's actions each turn.
Did I miss something?
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
On 20-Sep-01 at 08:56, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
(Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil) wrote: > Hmmm.
> Rules Lawyer Mode (Full Power Armor):
The rescue scenario has you place many counters on the board, any one of which
may be the pilot. By splitting up he investigated 5 counters in one
activation.
***
The rescue scenario has you place many counters on the board, any one of which
may be the pilot. By splitting up he investigated 5 counters in one
activation.
***
Well, you could have ruled that they, individually, couldn't have 'processed'
the info and reported as to which counter it was. Special situations require
special outlook.
Ain't hindsight grand?
Ahhh.
Except observing is an action. The disorganized unit could not perform the
Observe action to find out if a counter was real or a dummy.
If the scenario has "observe from X range is a free action", then a special
rule needs to be added to cover the situation of an unorganzed unit stumbling
over a counter.
In any case, the hidden unit would have a chance to suppress the disorganized
unit. the disorganized unit would then have to find cover to reorganize (can't
be done in the open while suppressed) and then spend its actions to first
reorganize and then to remove the suppression.
In all cases, it was pretty cheezy (though innovative). The only legtimate
reason, that I can think of, for a unit to disorganize (different from
detachments) would be to avoid the entire unit being captured (Special Forces
team is faced with overwhelming opposition and decides to "split up and meet
at the rendezvous point at 21:00".)
Well, first off a question: how long was the unit out of cohesion? The rules
state that if this situation occurs, the unit must Reorganise on its next
activation. However, this situation is possible if the unit had declared each
man to be a detached element. Of course, it takes an action to detach, so only
two could have detached each turn. And then only two could activate each turn
after that, since a detatched element cannot activate without a Communication
action from its leader... Eric
The Gearhead Page
http://members.home.net/mruseless
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT d++(--) S+:- a33>20 c+++ U-- P L E? W++ o- K w>++ O M+@ !V PS+ PE++
Y+
PGP t+ !5 X++ R+++ tv- b+ DI+ D++ G++ e+++ h--- r+++ y+++>$
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> -----Original Message-----
> On Thu, 20 September 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> The one thing that occured that really bothered me, the
It is legal. But...
The Kra'vak player has to detach a unit. That takes an action to form the
detached unit (one Kra'vak). To order that unit, the leader has to make a
communications roll (probably automatic) and then do a transfer action. That
would then give the single Kra'vak two actions but the unit is now activated.
It doesn't say that it's impossible, so technically on the next activation the
main squad could detach another Kra'vak with one action, and then transfer an
action to move him. This process could be done a total of 4 times to split off
a 5 Kra'vak squad into one main squad (the Squad Leader) and 4 detached
elements.
The limitation is that the squad leader must do a transfer action in order to
activate any detached element. So, the squad leader can do two actions
himself, or do one action himself and transfer the other to a single Kra'vak
(giving that Kra'vak two actions), or he can do two transfer actions to
activate two separate Kra'vak.
Is that clear? Summarized:
1. SL does two actions, or; 2. SL does one action, and one other Kra'vak does
two actions, or; 3. Two Kra'vak do two actions.
Note that points 2 and 3 will require communications rolls if the detached
elements are more than 6" away from the squad leader.
This, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. As one squad, the Kra'vak player can
do two actions with 5 figures. Spread out, the maximum he gets is 2 actions
with 2 figures. He would never be able to fire more than 2 Kra'vak figures.
I said that technically it's legal. It depends on what he was doing with the
Kra'vak. On page 18 of the rules, it says that a detached element must be done
for a specific purpose. It can't be done just to increase the number of
actions a squad can do.
For instance, it would be perfectly legal to split up a squad into 5 parts in
order for the squad to, say, stand at 5 different points in a large fortress
in order to spot the enemy. Or, to each place a demolition charge at different
parts of a perimeter. Or for each to spread out in order to move across an
area suspected of being a minefield.
However, if all the player was doing was spreading out his forces to give
himself more actions, and then reorganizing, I think it fails the "must be
done for a specific purpose" rule. This rule is obviously kind of vague, as it
requires a subjective judgement.
My interpretation of the rule is that the detached elements have to be doing
something different from the main squad, even if it's moving to the same
location along a different path. If they detach but do essentially the same
thing, it's not allowed.
Nor is it all that useful, given the limitation the Kra'vak player is under
with respect to having to transfer actions to the detached elements.
> On Thu, 20 September 2001, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
> Rules Lawyer Mode (Full Power Armor):
Ah! Okay, I misinterpreted the question, maybe. I assumed that the Kra'vak
player created 4 detached elements.
If all he did was move the squad out of unit integrity, then it doesn't gain
him anything. The squad members all move individually, but on the next
activation they all must move to minimum integrity distance and then eat up a
Reorg action.
While disorganized (because they are out of unit integrity distance) the squad
still only gets 2 actions, but the squad members can't do anything except move
closer together and then do a reorg.
I'm trying to see why someone would do this. You might want to in order to
protect against artillery. But then you'd have to to move together on the next
activation and do a reorg, so that means the squad would be stationary.
Personally, it sounds like doing this to protect against artillery is almost
like giving themselves a suppression. It eats up actions. If my opponent did
that every time I brought artillery to a game, I'd willingly let him. I'd
dance circles around him while he worried about some small RAM mortars.
> Why was he doing this? Flavor? To be harder to hit?
It makes him harder to hit for artillery. As per the rules, though, all
measurements are done to the centre of a squad's formation.
He may be trying a slight munchkin thing. You have, say, a squad going through
woods. There's a stone wall to your right, and an open road to the left. You
put three squad members behind the wall, two in the woods, one in the open.
Per the alternative rule on page 12, the firing player may choose to fire
separately at a group under the weakest cover.
In this case, the player has given the attacker a problem. He can attack one
figure in the open, but that one figure is the only possible casualty. He can
fire at two figures in the woods for soft cover, or he can fire at three
figures behind the wall for hard cover. If he wants to attack all of the
figures in a squad, he fires at the largest group, which are the guys behind
the wall.
The player has done the "munchkin" thing. He has half his squad in light or no
cover and half behind the wall.
Does this really gain him anything? I personally don't think so. I'd split my
squad and fire at the guy in the open for the easy kill and a suppression, and
fire at the guys in the woods. The "munchkin" made it harder to eliminate the
squad, but made it much easier to get a suppression.
If in doing this movement he moved squad elements out of unit integrity range,
he's also hamstrung himself. He will have to remove the suppression, and THEN
he would have to move within integrity range the outstanding figures (one
action) and THEN do a reorg (one action).
Either way, splitting up the squad as the Kra'vak player is not wise.
> On Thu, 20 September 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> The rescue scenario has you place many counters on the
Ah... Now there's a reason to do it.
Hmm... It's not technically illegal, then. In fact, it seems like a good
strategy.
I'm trying to think if this would be considered "munchkin" territory. If you
knew you were looking for a pilot in an area, you might want to split up your
force in order to find him. "Spread out, men, he's got to be around here
somewhere!"
Of course, this isn't how a realistic search is done. If you've ever seen
people searching for lost children, you see that they form long lines and
search that way. It would get you killed quickly in war, but the point is that
it's fairly easy to be passed over in anything approaching rough terrain.
I think the issue is the SG2 spotting rules and the fact that the player knows
where to go to search. He goes to the counters. The way the rules are written,
it would seem that it's very much legal.
As a referee, I'd have to think about whether I'd allow it. If it broke the
scenario, I might not. I'd say, "Okay, I didn't think about that. That's a
good plan. I think, though, if you did that you'd romp all over my scenario.
So, how about you don't do that and we'll see what happens."
I wouldn't have as big an issue with this as I use my own overwatch rules. If
a player did this, I'd fire at the squad the moment the a figure or figures
were out of integrity range. If lucky, my squad gets a suppression. Then, next
activation, by the rules, the Kra'vak have to remove the suppression, go back
together and do a reorg. They never even got to their counters if I did this
right.
> On Thu, 20 September 2001, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Well, you could have ruled that they, individually, couldn't have
That's a good one! Require a certain "critical mass" in order to check out a
counter. It sort of breaks down, though, if a squad is reduced to
one figure. Why can that squad-of-1 check the counter when individuals
couldn't? But, yeah, I'd probably rule the same thing.
> On Thu, 20 September 2001, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
> Except observing is an action. The disorganized unit could
Except that a hidden unit is observed if within line of sight in the open.
Unless, of course, it's something that this doesn't happen to, such as mines
and booby traps.
I guess this is open to interpretation. Is a pilot a squad, in which case he
is spotted automatically when the squad comes within LOS, or is he a "special
case" requiring a spotting roll?
The implication in the rules, though, is that only the squad leader can spot.
So, the implication is that figures out of unit integrity don't count. LOS is
still measured from the centre of the squad to the centre of the squad.
Splitting up the figures in this way doesn't allow them to spot.
I always thought that was maybe a little too limiting. I see, now, why it's
like that.
> In all cases, it was pretty cheezy (though innovative). The
I would allow a unit to disorganize if coming under an artillery bombardment.
***
That's a good one! Require a certain "critical mass" in order to check out a
counter. It sort of breaks down, though, if a squad is reduced to one
figure. Why can that squad-of-1 check the counter when individuals
couldn't? But, yeah, I'd probably rule the same thing.
***
Thanks! When a vac-head comments on groppo matters, he's always on shaky
ground. No matter how big 'fleet' pride. ;->=
***
Why can that squad-of-1 check the counter when individuals couldn't?
But, yeah, I'd probably rule the same thing.
***
and
***
Except that a hidden unit is observed if within line of sight in the open.
Unless, of course, it's something that this doesn't happen to, such as mines
and booby traps.
I guess this is open to interpretation. Is a pilot a squad, in which case he
is spotted automatically when the squad comes within LOS, or is he a "special
case" requiring a spotting roll?
***
Starts calling for granularity of info, right? The counters give a sort of
spotting already, but you saw that; I think you have to say somebody trying to
get back in coherency is too busy to stop and look hard for the cowering
pilot. Not entirely satisfying, for sure.
Not that a fleet pilot would ever cower, of course...
Back to the first quote above, I suppose any squad sole survivor would have
already made major frosty morale, rolls, right? He/she deserves some
'Rambo' considerations...
Well, enough tip-toeing on the above-referenced shaky ground.