Hi,
After playing some games of StarGrunt, I got 2 questions:
Transferring Actions:
Can a command element transfer one action to an independent figure? With a
sniper, this seems too powerfull. In our last game, we had rule it was not
possible after seeing my sniper killing 2 leaders in a turn!
Overruns and follow-through attacks:
In doing close combat, if the defender withdraw and the attacker decide to do
an overrun and succed, what exactly happen? The rule says that you should do
another Close assault combat. Does it means that the defender need to do a new
confidence test and possibly flee again?
Thanks!
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:57:40 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> Transferring Actions :
With a
> sniper, this seems too powerfull. In our last game, we had rule it was
Yes, it is possible.
I haven't found it a problem. My snipers are the opposite of yours and tend to
get killed easily. *S*
Losing a leader, while nasty, results in one casualty and maybe a couple of
suppression markers. Compare that to transferring an action to a squad and
having it conduct fire combat. It could do the same thing but with more
casualties.
Play some more games and you'll probably see that the independent sniper is
powerful, like a small squad, but that allowing it to get a Transfer Action
isn't overpowering.
> Overruns and follow-through attacks:
It is rather vague, isn't it?
I'm trying to remember how we did it. I believe we had the defender making a
Confidence Test. So, with the overrun, it is possible for the defender to run
away. However, if it does, we didn't allow a second overrun move by the
attacker.
G'day guys,
> In doing close combat, if the defender
We always just repeat the whole process again (including voluntary retreat).
However after seeing one close combat move the entire length of the board "I'm
going in... OK I'll flee... OK I' chasing... OK I' fleeing again...." we
decided that one flee and follow through was enough. With one small side
note... if the defenders flee from the first assault and pull up just in front
of another squad, then if the attacker follows them and wins then the attacker
may do a follow through into the new squad rather than
just pull up and play happy targets. I hope that explanation actually made
sense.
Cheers
Beth
Hi again!
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:57:40 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> Transferring Actions :
With a
> sniper, this seems too powerfull. In our last game, we had rule it was
Don't forget the confidence test at threat level 3. I forgot to mention that
one of his squad has drop to Broken: having lost a leader and confidence level
the first turn, lost the new leader and badly roll for CL (drop 2 CL) the
second turn!
Against regular unit, the sniper is quite good (better if the lesder is poor)
for lowering confidence.
> Play some more games and you'll probably see that the independent
Well, I guess next time my opponent will send more troop to take care of
him. :)
> Overruns and follow-through attacks:
To finish my sniper story: after my opponent missed my sniper at short range
with his PA unit (4 men) he use his command squad to reactivate the PA unit
and try a close assault. At that point, we realise that the sniper would never
be able to pass his confidence test, so he was just withdrawing
for 2 times (the PA's eventually fail their test for follow-through).
Finnaly, the sniper nerve failed after I rolled a 1 to remove a panic
marker...
Anyway, having a limitation on how many time you can overrun is good. Else, we
can have units doing a lots of movement on the table during a close assault.
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:
[...]
> >I'm trying to remember how we did it.
fleeing
> again...."
*laugh* That reminds me of the very first StarGrunt game I played. KR did a
little demo game for a few of us at Origins. One guy (a friend of Mike
Miserendino's, I believe) had a sniper picking away at our units, pinning them
down left, right, and center. I finally got one of my squads unsuppressed (by
virtue of our platoon leader) and they flushed out the sniper (who apparently
kept falling out of trees; he blew his 'hidden movement' rolls that badly). We
chased him halfway across the board before we got out of the woods, then
charged him. We charged, he retreated, we followed through, he, retreated, we
followed
through again, he routed ("hey, nice las-rifle we found!"). It was kinda
funny. :-)
Yes. I have had this "domino excellerator" effect in other games. This is
where a unit can move faster against opposition than unopposed. There is just
no good way of dealing with it. If you count the number of moves and then
"freeze" the unit that long, other units can waltz up and whack them.
One way to control this is liberal use of Overwatch house rules (such as
those at http://www.stargrunt.com/rules/ovwatch.html). This tends to
discourage multiple follow-throughs as the units fall prey to overwatch
fire, and get suprised in the open.
Related:
Having re-read the rules on Close Assault (CA), I was surprised at when
the defenders take the reaction test: 1) Attackers declare a CA 2) Attackers
make Reaction Test (RT). If fails the CA ends. 3) Defenders make RT. 4)
Defender retreat if failed RT or voluntary retreat. 5) Attackers combat move
if Defenders stand (do not retreat) or move to Defender's initial position if
the Defenders retreat. 6) If Defenders stand and attackers fail to reach
defenders, standing Defenders get Final Defensive Fire (even is activation was
used). 7) If Attackers had not reached Defender's position, a 2nd combat move
may made. 8) If Attackers reach Defenders, CA combat until 1 unit retreats.
9) If defender retreats. If desired, repeat 1-6,8-9.
This means that a unit that retreats does not take fire from a CA until and
unless the close assaulting unit reaches it. I was also suprised to see that
retreating units are not placed under suppression at the end of the CA if they
retreat.
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/
---
> -----Original Message-----
fleeing
> again...." we decided that one flee and follow through was enough.
With
> one
Correction:
9) If defender retreats and if desired, repeat 1-5,8-9
No Final Defensive Fire and no 2nd combat move for overrun/followup
CA.
> -----Original Message-----
With
> > one
Hi,
This discussion just pop some new questions in my head:
1 - If the defender volontary retreat from close assault, does he loose
a CL? (I will say yes to put a limiting factor about how many time you could
retreat).
2 - What about an independent figure? does he get a suppression each
time?
What Brian point out indicate that a unit that didn't wish to be in a close
assault can flee pretty easily (especially sniper). The attacker will
eventually fail his reaction test before reaching the defender, depending on
how you handle voluntary retreat. The defender may be able to do range fire
after that, wich is more effecient if it was a low quality unit than doing
CA...
I've been thinking for a while: What about the defender having to do a roll
each time he has to flee (voluntary or not). This could simulate the ability
of the defender to outrun the attacker (covering their track, moving silently,
etc). Or maybe an opposed roll between attacker and defender. There could also
be a cumulative modifier after each fleeing attempt...
What people think about this?
Yves,
> Yes. I have had this "domino excellerator" effect in other games. This
fleeing
> again...." we decided that one flee and follow through was enough.
With
> one
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:32:41 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> 1 - If the defender volontary retreat from close assault, does he loose
This was discussed on, I think, the playtest list. The rules don't say. The
consensus was that it shouldn't be automatic but should probably be a
+3/+1/NR
or +2/+1/NR test for low/medium/high motivation troops. The idea being
that there is always a risk of inciting a rout when withdrawing troops, so
there should be a risk of losing CL. On the other hand, they weren't FORCED to
run, so it probably shouldn't be automatic.
But this is essentially a house rule. If you don't want a house rule, I would
suggest that you do drop a CL level (but only one) if you voluntarily retreat.
> 2 - What about an independent figure? does he get a suppression each
That's a very good question! An independent figure failing a Confidence Test
gets a suppression marker if it were to drop one CL, and a panic if it were to
drop 2 CL.
I would say that if it loses CL (because you interpret the rule that way, or
you are using the Confidence Test house rule), then it gains a suppression
marker.
> What Brian point out indicate that a unit that didn't wish to be in a
There was a big discussion on this very point. It's a touchy situation. Some
players don't like the idea that the attacker could end up out in the open
close to the enemy, with the enemy with one suppression marker but not
activated.
Others point out that picking the right time in a game turn to launch a close
assault is important.
There are also historical analogies for a defender backing up to a secondary
position and firing at a close assaulting enemy.
One simple "fix" to this, though, is to allow follow-up movement to be
the same distance as the defender's retreat movement (6") or combat move, the
attacker's choice. The idea is that during a follow-up attack the
attacker is
less likely to be skulking and more likely to run hell-bent after the
retreating unit. This means that if the attacker would reach the defender, but
the defender retreats, the attacker could STILL catch up with the defender. A
defender can't out run an attacker in this case. All it can do is pick better
defensive terrain.
> I've been thinking for a while : What about the defender having to do a
The problem is that the defender gets a 6" retreat move, but the attacker must
roll. A simple way to handle this is to make the retreater make a combat move,
too. The defender may be able to retreat clear out of the way (rolling a 12"
move, for instance, which an attacker may feel it is unlikely to make). Or, it
may only make it 2" away. This would be essentially the same as your opposed
roll to see if they can flee out of the way.
> The problem is that the defender gets a 6" retreat move, but the
Or, it
> may only make it 2" away. This would be essentially the same as your
I love this idea. Allow a combat move retreat, and a combat move follow up,
but only once, none of that retreat and follow across the board stuff. This
way those skinnies aren't going to have much of a chance of retreating in
> -----Original Message-----
This was discussed on, I think, the playtest list. The rules don't say. The
consensus was that it shouldn't be automatic but should probably be a
+3/+1/NR
or +2/+1/NR test for low/medium/high motivation troops. The idea being
that there is always a risk of inciting a rout when withdrawing troops, so
there should be a risk of losing CL. On the other hand, they weren't FORCED to
run, so it probably shouldn't be automatic.
But this is essentially a house rule. If you don't want a house rule, I would
suggest that you do drop a CL level (but only one) if you voluntarily retreat.
[Bri] This is bad (IMHO). I liked the solution proposed on the list
earlier: The defender makes a confidence check even if voluntarily withdrawing
(this is actually indicated on p.41 "Should the defender withdraw [he may
elect to do so voluntarily if desired, irrespective of the Confidence test
result]..."). If if they fail, they loose confidence as normal.
[snip]
> One simple "fix" to this, though, is to allow follow-up movement to be
[Bri] I don't care for this. It guarantees that the attacker will be
able to do another CA on the defenders unless they retreat.
> The problem is that the defender gets a 6" retreat move, but the
[Bri] I like this as a house rule better. Both attacker and defender
perform combat moves when attacking or withdrawing from CA.
> Allan Goodall awg@sympatico.ca
My comments above marked by [Bri]
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:59:58 -0500, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> [Bri] This is bad (IMHO). I liked the solution proposed on the list
I do to. Of course some folks don't like house rules, depending on what their
players want. They prefer to avoid arguments by trying to keep things
"clean".
> [Bri] I like this as a house rule better. Both attacker and defender
Yeah, me too. Some of those comments were just "off the top of my head". Or,
as a friend calls them, a "scream of consciousness". I like the idea of a CL
test for voluntary retreating and a combat move for retreats and advances.
Only one, as well, no unlimited retreat/advance across the table top.
> At 10:22 PM 1/22/01 -0600, you wrote:
This
> way those skinnies aren't going to have much of a chance of retreating
This is a very good idea, clean and simple, I like it! I will try it next time
I play. That should really help to catch those elusive sniper or fleeing
command squad.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:49:04 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> This is a very good idea, clean and simple, I like it! I will try it
Thank you. I guess I should put it up on my web site...
You will also note, though that sometimes that pesky sniper or command squad
is going to go 12" and the pursuers are going to be stuck out in the open
after moving 2". Either way, it will be fun and exciting! *S*
I had taken the phrase "irrespective of the Confidence test result" to
indicate that a Confidence Test was made even if voluntarily retreating.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/
-----
> -----Original Message-----