1) Rules does, rules does not. Sounds like a GW-style argument.
2) Pilot search.
Here's how I'd do it, and yes this has little to do with rules and more to do
with sense.
If you new you'd beaten an enemy to an area, and needed to find a pilot, you
might scatter into a couple of small fireteams. I'd organize CSAR
units into 3-4 man fireteams (squads) each of which moved independently.
If I really was desperate and the pilot wouldn't get up and indicate his
presence (he should be watching for help and your comms should let him know
you are near), I might scatter the troops. But only if I was capital D
desparate or fairly positive no enemies were nearby.
I'd say one man can search a small area defined by a dummy counter. And the
bumpf about SLs being the only members who can spot.... my lord that sounds
silly! I have eyes, but cannot see (until I get promoted to Corporal!).
However, OTOH, any unit that came under fire while dispersed, I would give
them a NASTY morale check. The very last thing anyone wants is to
be away from his buddies, all by himself, out of mutual support - and
then have an enemy open up on him! I'd say TL+2.
This kind of game would probably be better carried out in FMAS. SG can handle
it... but it shows a few holes....;)
I ran an SG game (very successfully) in which Adrian J tried to get a spec
forces team made up of two 4 man squads with a "liberated"
scientist away from a pursuing platoon (4 sec + ldr) of infantry. I ran
another one where another 2 x 4 man spec forces unit was fleeing from a
pursuing platoon (trying to get across a river that marked a border with 2
"war criminals" being "unofficially extradited). In the first case, the spec
forces got the scientist out at a cost of about 75% of their squad. In the
second case, one SF quad got pinned and shot up by a fast moving enemy squad,
and the other SF squad stuck around to try to break them out with sniper fire
(bad rolls...) and got close assaulted by 2 enemy squads. Finally, the lone SF
survivor with the SAW turned, dropped his pack (emergency breakaway), and ran
like a bugger for the river. He was wounded just as he got out of the river on
the far side (forgot where the hole in the minefield was and ate a mine...)
but he was the lone survivor.
This reaches about the lowest granularity level for SG. Whereas platoon
engagements reach the high end of FMAS' granularity. In these "limiting cases"
you have to be prepared to make judgement calls based on common
sense (Jon T's famous "play the _game_ not the rules!"). I think rules
based judgements are okay, but you end up with some silly rulings that
contradict obvious sense. Judgement based rulings and a group willing to be
mature and reach consensus are preferable, if you are fortunate enough to
enjoy this situation.
Tomb.
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:46:21 -0400, "Tomb" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> I'd say one man can search a small area defined by a dummy counter. And
It's only silly if you assume that each individual figure in SG2 is an
individual figure. In fact, when I explain how to play SG2 I point out that
each figure is a place holder. The figures are just casualty and weapon
indicators. The unit, the squad, is the main element in SG2. The squad in SG2
is like the squad counters in AH's "Squad Leader". The SAW guys are like the
LMG counters; detached squads are like the half squad counters.
In fact, the leader is the only one that initiates anything in SG2. Actions
are either the leader doing something or the leader motivating the squad to do
something. This aspect of SG2 is often forgotten.
To my mind, the leader is not the only figure spotting. But forcing the rules
to say "only the leader spots" stops the munchkinism of spreading out an
entire squad so that one squad can search out all dummy counters over a 120
metre front. It's internally consistent with the SL doing the actions. It
keeps the concepts easy to remember, even though it's actually just simulating
something entirely different.
In other words, it's an abstraction. It may sound silly by the letter of the
rules, but it works as a restriction.
What a good way of looking at SGII! It makes all those "don't be too picky
about ranges" etc. coments make a bit of sense, If you measure all ranges to
the unit leader, and only use figures for the type of cover they are in,
then you have a way to mark anything and also you can tell which one is the
commander (people have a problem reading the badges of rank I paint on my New
Isrealis).
I thought I would throw this out for some opinions. My gaming group and I have
tried a few different ways of playing SG2, and they all make sense on some
level. We are still debating which way promotes the fastest, easiest gamepay,
and which makes the most sense.
(1) The models do not represent the actual positions of the troops. You must
declare the actual position of the models each time they are moved. "The
actual models won't stand up on that hill, so I'll put them on top. But they
are really at the edge of the ridgeline, in hard cover". "All these fig's are
at the edge of this wood, but this unit is IN the wood." This method is more
is line with the groundscale of 1"=10m.
(2) A more WYSIWYG approach, if you can see a model you can hit it, with a few
restrictions. Obviously, the viewpoint is from the firing mini's perspective
(if in doubt we use a laser pointer held next to the firing mini to determine
what can be seen). This approach has the side effect of lessening the amount
of cover on a table, since a model on top of a hill is in the open instead of
using the available hillcrest.
Eric
> At 7:56 AM -0600 9/22/01, mrUseless wrote:
That is what In Position is for. The figures start to use the available cover
in that area to provide cover and concealment. You do use In Position right?
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:06:56 +0000, "Richard Kirke"
<richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What a good way of looking at SGII! It makes all those "don't be too
This, funny enough, is how I play it in demo games. It's an option on my SG2
web site page. I use the squad leader to indicate the centre of the squad, and
all measurements/rulings are based on the location of the squad leader.
The squad leader becomes the centre of the squad, in essence.
When playing it with more experienced players, though, there are reasons you
may not want to do this. Artillery comes to mind, as it has a blast radius.
When facing artillery, the position of the squad leader within the squad
becomes more of an issue. If you drop an artiller shell on the centre of a
squad, the squad leader will always be in the blast radius. If you want to
protect your squad against artillery, you can string it out in a line. Putting
the squad leader at either end of the line means that there's less of a chance
of having the SL _and_ a bunch of guys within the blast radius. (There
is the counter argument that it increases the probability of a squad's loss of
integrity.)
There are four main advantages of the "SL as squad centre" idea:
- Some folks find the stringing out of figures a little bit munchkinny,
in which case using the SL as the squad centre seems more "realistic".
- This method is faster in play. Once a player understands that all he
has to do is measure and move the one figure, and the rest of the figure's
position doesn't matter, game play speeds up (especially for newbies).
- This method results, in my opinion, in better aesthetics, especially
in 25mm. If you want your squad in a tight circular or oval formation on the
edge
of woods -- as an example -- you pretty much have to put figures out
front of the woods. With this system, you put the SL on the wood edge, and
then place the other figures so they look good.
- This method makes the game easier to play when opponents are packed in
close, particularly in close combat. This can actually negate the point about
aesthetics, but it keeps things less confusing. I've had big close combats
where I've left the SLs on the board and pulled all the other figures off the
board, or over to a bare area. The close combat takes place where everyone can
easily mark figures dead or wounded, while the squad positions are unaffected.
At the end of close combat, the figures are moved to their SLs.
The way I handle close combat is measuring SL to SL to see if the close
combatting squad can reach the other. If the attacking squad's combat move is
within this range, the close combat takes place and the figures are placed the
way the attacker wishes.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:56:58 -0600, "mrUseless" <mruseless@home.com>
wrote:
> (1) The models do not represent the actual positions of the troops. You
"The
> actual models won't stand up on that hill, so I'll put them on top. But
Hills in SG2 are kind of vague. You get hard cover if you are beyond the crest
or ridgeline. Now, this is fine if you use rounded hills. What if you use flat
topped hills? I just assume that a figure on the top of the hill is under hard
cover.
There's also the question of the military crest versus the actual crest. The
military crest is further forward. You are more vulnerable to fire from
another hill or from greater distance if you are on the military crest, but
there is a major advantage if you are attacked by someone coming up the slope:
you can fire on them! If you are behind the ridge crest or hill crest you
actually can't fire on an enemy at the base of the ridge or hill.
My hills are usually flat on top. I adjudicate that a figure on the forward
edge of the hill is on the military crest. It's hard cover for figures at a
lower elevation but only soft for figures on the same elevation. If the figure
is in the middle of the hill or further back than that, it's behind the hill
crest. It's hard cover for all attacks from the same elevation, but figures at
the base of the hill can't be fired at or fire at them.
That's a long way around saying, "I usually don't have the figures indicate
precisely where they are." For one thing, the game scale is 1" = 10 metres.
You can easily put a squad of guys into a 10 metre circle. That's about the
size of a GZG figure's base. So, having the figures indicate EXACTLY where
they are really doesn't work.
> This method is
Exactly. That's why I do that.
> (2) A more WYSIWYG approach, if you can see a model you can hit it,
I don't play it this way.
> That is what In Position is for. The figures start to use the
Of course. We make heavy use of it. But you really didn't address the
issue....