We played a short game of SG tonight, the ambush scenario from the back of the
book. The road went through woods and brush, with a bridge over a small
stream. While Josh was out of the room, I set out
counters for mines, dummies, and my squads, and we begin.. My GMS/P
disabled the second APC just before the bridge ( I do see, John, what
you mean about GMS/P being useless--fortunately I roll well), and its
surviving squaddies bailed out. Unfortunately for them, I had a squad
under the bridge--they saw my squad but couldn't do anything about it.
Three of them, seven of mine so I decided to close assault. Now, you have to
declare close assault before anything else, so I'm starting with my squad In
Position. I passed the reaction test to launch the assault, and as it happens
I also passed the
"leave-IP-and-move-in-one-action" test. But what if I hadn't? Would
I just try again--failing twice just means we're eager to close to
hand to hand, but too clumsy to climb out from under the bridge? Or
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:35:46 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Three of them, seven of mine so I decided to close assault. Now, you
That's a good question. I don't think I've had it happen. I'd handle it this
way.
Declare close assault. Make test for leaving IP without spending an action.
If the IP test passes, the squad is out of IP. Make the test for close
assault. If they pass the close assault test, close assault occurs. If they
fail the test for close assault, they have used up their one action as per the
usual close assault rules. They have one action left which they could use to
go back IP (if they wished) or something else as per the usual close assault
rules.
If the IP test fails, the squad has used up their first action as per the
usual "attempting to move while in IP" rule. Since close assault is required
to be done on the first action, the unit can not close assault this
activation, either. They do still have an action to do something, though, and
they are still in IP.
I would do the tests in that order: moving out of IP, then doing close
assault. You _could_ do it the other way around. It's actually safer to
do it the other way around, because if the close assault test fails the unit
is still in IP. However, it just seems to me to make more sense to test for
leaving IP first. I can see a squad leader yelling, "Hey, get ready boys,
we're charging that hill over there!" and the squad members having to stick up
from behind whatever little cover they found in order to see what the squad
leader is talking about. In other words, they'd have to risk peeking (leave
IP) before they could even start to consider rushing for that point.
That's how I'd do it without any house rule, just as a straight adaptation of
Jon's rules. It does leave the squad members out of IP, though, for a failed
attack, it requires two rolls instead of one. Another idea would probably be
to introduce a house rule. Make only one test (the enter into close assault
test), but make it at, say, a +1 to the TL for moving out of IP. If
failed, the unit does not close assault but remains in IP.
It depends on how you see IP. If, as per my above description, you feel that
squad members have to stick their heads out of IP (or lose their concentration
for a moment, or the squad leader and assistant squad leader have to move
around about the squad members to describe the plan, or the squad members have
to move closer to the squad leader to here the plan, or other such things),
then it makes sense to have to test for IP loss first, then close assault.
Jon can maybe give his thoughts on this. At any rate, it should go in the list
of questions TomB and I were making.
Allen said:
> I would do the tests in that order: moving out of IP, then doing
That didn't occur to me--I figure if they can see to shoot, they can
see to know where to charge. I did it "charge test", then "leave-IP
test" because I figured they'd have to pass the charge test to have a
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:58:29 -0400, "Laserlight"
<laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> That didn't occur to me--I figure if they can see to shoot, they can
That's a good point. I always figured the "test to charge into close assault"
and the "test to leave IP" were morale based. The squad members have to test
before they charge up to the enemy, and they have to test before they stick
their heads up out of the only really good cover they have.
If that's the case, it seems weird that a squad can pass the morale test to
charge the enemy but can't pass the morale test to jump up from behind a log.
The morale test for charging the enemy seems to be the "nastier" of the two.
This suggests that only one test needs to be passed. A squad could make one
reaction test and leave IP and charge the enemy. This, in fact, is the
simplest solution. However I suspect you probably agree with me that it
doesn't seem "right" that the squad could leave IP to charge the enemy with no
penalty. If it's harder to move out of IP normally, it should be harder to
charge the enemy when in IP, too. From a game balance issue, this seems to
make more sense.
I don't think your way, testing charge first then IP, is wrong. It certainly
is safer. The cause and effect seems more realistic, too:
- Squad in IP is ordered to charge.
- Squad must make two tests.
- If either test fails, squad remains in IP and doesn't charge.
That seems reasonable enough. My suggestion of testing for IP, then for
charge, seems more "logical" in the order things happen. But the end result,
now that I've thought of it, sounds _less_ logical:
- Squad in IP is ordered to charge.
- Squad must make two tests.
- Depending on order tests are failed, squad may be in IP and not
charge, or may be out of IP and not charge.
You'd think if guys weren't going to charge they wouldn't move out of IP,
either.
I like your order of things due to the end result: test charge first then IP.
I'd like to hear what others think, and whether a single test with a
TL+1 is a
better move.
From: Allan Goodall agoodall@att.net
> I like your order of things due to the end result: test charge first
If they're both morale tests--which makes sense, given the time
scale--then might as werll combine them with a modifier. IMHO.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:30:56 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> If they're both morale tests--which makes sense, given the time
Agreed. That was my preferred method. However this requires a house rule, as
it's not stated specifically in the rule book.
What would be a fair modifier? Would +1 be good enough?
Let's assume we want the probability of passing a single test to be about the
same as passing 2 tests. For a Regular 2 unit, the chance of passing both
tests is 56.25% (75% chance of passing the charge into close assault test, 75%
chance of passing the remove IP test). A +1 for the single test (close
assault
while in IP) makes it a 62.5% chance of passing, while a +2 makes it a
50% chance.
For Veteran 2s, the chance of passing both tests is 64%. A +1 modifier
would
make a single test passable at 70%. A +2 modifier would make the chance
of passing 60%.
For Green 2s, the chance of passing both tests is 44.44%. A +1 modifier
would
make a single test passable at 50%. A +2 lowers the probability of
passing to
33.33%.
I think +1 is sufficient.
I said:
> If they're both morale tests--which makes sense, given the time
Allen said:
> Agreed. That was my preferred method. However this requires a house
<snip statistics>
> I think +1 is sufficient.
Concur. We have a motion and a second. Any debate from the rest of you
slackers? <g>
On 2-Jul-02 at 10:22, laserlight@quixnet.net (laserlight@quixnet.net)
wrote:
> I said:
This slacker thinks it sounds like an excellent idea that needs to go up on
somebodies house rules web page.
Allan Goodall schrieb:
> Let's assume we want the probability of passing a single
> I think +1 is sufficient.
The examples you discussed with a +1 all had a better probability of
success than two separate tests. So this is on the generous side. From what I
have occasionally read, many consider SG morale to be somewhat
over-generous. If you think so, too, you may prefer the +2 modifier.
Greetings Karl Heinz
From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> The examples you discussed with a +1 all had a better probability of
The morale system *is* over-generous, in the sense that losing
casualties does not affect your confidence levels as often or as severely as
they should. That's a separate topic, though, and Allen has house rules on his
site already.
I think the penalty for "leaving cover" and the penalty for "closing to close
assault" could reasonably be thought of as overlapping. If you were in hard
cover (behind a wall) but not IP, you wouldn't get an extra IP penalty for
initiating close assault, right?
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:24:30 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> This slacker thinks it sounds like an excellent idea that needs to go
Done. It can be found on my Stargrunt pages (where I keep the Stargrunt
Index). I also added the rule Jon gave a little while ago about medics, and I
reorganized the site. I had clarifications for some of the rule book holes,
but TomB pointed out that these were actually House Rules and not official
clarifications, so I've moved them to the House Rules section. This Assaulting
from IP rule is in the House Rules section.
The URL is:
http://sg2.hyperbear.com
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:52:53 -0400, "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> I think the penalty for "leaving cover" and the penalty for "closing
The mutual admiration society continues, as I agree with you completely. I
thought of a +2 modifier, but it would be worse for squads charging than
rolling twice. I thought that was a bit too nasty.
However, since Jon hasn't said anything official, this really is just a house
rule and players can make it +1 or +2 depending on how they feel.
No, I just bought the rules and read them x 1. I try not to make a fool of
myself until afdter the second reading...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:20:33 -0400 "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> writes:
On 2-Jul-02 at 11:09, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
wrote: > Allan Goodall schrieb:
> > Let's assume we want the probability of passing a single
I don't think the entire morale rules to be over-generous. Just
the part where if you chip away in tiny bits morale is not an issue.
OTH, if you want to talk broken morale you could houserule no morale checks
until 50% or greater casualties and it would have no affect on a DSII game.
From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
> The examples you discussed with a +1 all had a better probability of
The morale system *is* over-generous, in the sense that losing
casualties does not affect your confidence levels as often or as severely as
they should. That's a separate topic, though, and Allen has house rules on his
site already.
I think the penalty for "leaving cover" and the penalty for "closing to close
assault" could reasonably be thought of as overlapping. If you were in hard
cover (behind a wall) but not IP, you wouldn't get an extra IP penalty for
initiating close assault, right?
[quoted original message omitted]