SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

> You wrote:

> After having a full 9 man OU squad be defeated in a close assault by

As you note above, if he's in power armor, he's got a LOT to be confident
about. Ate 9 men for breakfast? One wonders what he'll do with all those
prisioners. My inclination would be duct tape, but then again as an Engineer
I'm likely to have that on or near my person.

Hi Wayne,

Interesting suggestions, although honestly I think they are more appropriate
for a Skirmish level game.

your second option seems more fluid and less likely to clutter the game.

Mind you I'd be questioning why a lone 'suicidal' trooper is in a position
that he is Close Assaulting anyone anyway? We try to keep a more reasonable
game flow going. ie what we call our 'moral' approach. Put yourself in the
troopies place and ask yourself if you would do the same thing in that
situation. We try to avoid the 'because the rules don't say I can't then I
will' situations. Gaming is after all meant to be fun.

On the other hand, I find PA so powerful that a lone PA trooper would
reasonably be able to have at a bunch of softskins!!

So Wayne, interested in coming along to Western Suburbs this weekend? Paul
O'Grady and myself are organising a three table 5 player game. Not as big as
our Demi Battalion game at the Open Day but big.

Cheers,

Owen G

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 03:41 PM 6/08/98 +1000, you wrote:

I thought Stargrunt was a skirmish level game. Or do you mean skirmish where
each model is moved independently.

> your second option seems more fluid and less likely to clutter the

That's the one I prefered. Ijust thought it might be harder to get people to
agree to play with it. Outside of your normal opponents, who should be oppent
to trying rule suggestions and house rules anyway.

> Mind you I'd be questioning why a lone 'suicidal' trooper is in a

True

> On the other hand, I find PA so powerful that a lone PA trooper would

When I said lone trooper I was really thinking of a PA trooper. My normal
opponent likes to use PA troops but I prefer to use normal troopers and I find
that I need to kill his PA squad to the last man before my squads are safe
from a close assault. With them normally being Vets or Elites they lose very
few confidence levels and with up to three activations a turn (he likes to
transfer actions to them) having only three suppression markers on them isn't
enough to stop them preforming a close assault.

I suppose you could say I thought up the change as a result of always being
assaulted by a numerically smaller squad, even if they are PA troopies. Maybe
I should suggest that my opponent supplies less drugs to his PA troopies
before the game so they won't be so agressive:)

After having a full 9 man OU squad be defeated in a close assault by the
remains of a power armour squad (1 man), I was surprised to find that there
was nothing in the Stargrunt II rules that covers a numerically inferior squad
declaring and initiating a close assault on a numerically superior squad.

As the rules stand now, a single solider doesn't seem to care if he is ordered
to assault a single man or a full 10 squad and will cheerfully
(ie.
he has a confidence level of CONFIDENT) attempted the assault with a +0
modifier on his REACTION TEST no matter what the odds.

What follows is two suggestions which cover the circumstances when a squad
wishes to initiate a close assault against a numerically superior force.

OPTION 1) Currently after the attacker has passed their REACTION test to
initiate a close assault, the defender needs to make a CONFIDENCE test to see
if they will stand and receive the charge with the following modifiers. Which
are based on the ratio of attackers to defenders. attacker's odds. defender's
threat level
                 1:1 (less than 2:1)            +1
                 2:1                            +2
                 3:1                            +3
etc. etc. (all fractional odds are rounded down)

What I suggest is that when the attackers have less than a 1:1 advantage in
numbers, that is the defenders outnumber the attackers (or the equivalent when
dealing with power armour), the threat level for the defenders
REACTION test should be +0.  This changes the above table to the
following. attacker's odds. defender's threat level
                 less than 1:1                     +0
                        1:1                        +1
                        2:1                        +2
                        3:1                        +3
etc. etc. (all fractional odds are rounded down)

This means that a single suicidal trooper attacking your fully manned squad
would not result in them taking a CONFIDENCE test with a +1 modifier and
still leaves the possibility that the sight of this single approaching enemy
will convince your troops that he must have support near by or he wouldn't be
attacking them and result in your squad withdrawing.

OPTION 2) This suggestion is more involved than the option 1 but is the one
that I prefer. When the attacker announces his intention to initiate a close
assault and proceeds to attempt his REACTION roll at a THREAT level based on
the assaulting squads CONFIDENCE level, the following additional modifier
should be added to the THREAT level. This additional modifier takes into
account if the attacker is at a numerical disadvantage or not.

        attacker outnumbers defender                            +0
        defender outnumbers attacker by less than 2:1           +1
        defender outnumbers attacker by 2:1                     +2
        defender outnumbers attacker by 3:1                     +3
etc. etc. (all fractional odds are rounded down)

This would mean that the lone power armour trooper (with a CONFIDENCE level of
CONFIDENT) that attacked my OU squad of 9 men would have had to pass a
REACTION test at +4 (1 PA equals 2 men v's 9 men. which is a little over
4 to 1 odds so is rounded down to 4 to 1).

As I have already said, I think the second option is the better of the two but
since minor changes in the rules are more likely to be accepted by the
majority of players I would suggest that the first option might turn out to be
more usable.

[quoted original message omitted]

A suggestion or two...

> When I said lone trooper I was really thinking of a PA trooper. My

If your regular opponent is a fan of PA because he gets better troops and kit
than you then there are a few things you could do with regular troops to even
the game up without giving the regular troops a huge numerical advantage,
which eve though they are facing PA seems unfair to the PA guy.

The first thing you could do is, if your regulars have assault
rifle/grenade launchers, say that your guys have armour piercing
grenades, when the PA comes near spend an action reorganising, tell your
opponent that your guys are reloading with AP rounds only. Ok so you should
drop the FP of the rifle one until you reload with GP grenades, however, until
then you could use the AP rounds as IVAR against the PA. The second thing is
tell your opponent that all your regular, non SAW, troops have IVARs, when the
PA nears splat, dead PA. Third, if your rgs are not moving much (when facing
PA mine tend to be fairly static as the PA is racing round like headless
chickens, give your regs claymore mines (the one in the book, I forgot its
name), plant them in front of the troops, as soon as the PA charges it runs
smack into the miones and splat again. These are just some suggestions, I
guess I used to use them just to get the guy I was playing
out of the GW mind-set of close assault is the only way to play.  Once
your opponent is wary of little things like this then they are much more
likely to play a fun game rather than charge straight at your reg softskins
and beat the stuffing out of them in a 'fun for him but not for you' kind of
way.

Stuart spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> The first thing you could do is, if your regulars have assault

Or maybe a die shift weaker impact than an IAVR (which is d12 if I recall).
But I like this idea a lot too.

The second thing
> is tell your opponent that all your regular, non SAW, troops have

Even every second guy!

Third, if your rgs are not moving much
> (when facing PA mine tend to be fairly static as the PA is racing

CDMs - Command Detonated Mines.

Excellent strategic use, assuming you are in fixed defenses or have an action
to plant them and the enemy doesn't see you planting them. (If he does, at
least he'll know what he has to deal with).

Good Advice, Stu.

Tom.

> You wrote:

In addition, PA troops are much more likely to be veteran (in terms of
experience, not just their chit value) and from what I have seen, as grunts
survive and get older (to a point) their sense of invulnerability
skyrockets, especially when their boom-boom toys are so much better than
their opponents, and make such cool noises...;>

[quoted original message omitted]

> You wrote:

> Er, which 'grunts' have you seen? In all my years 'grunting' (Regular

Of course, in some lines of work, we know we're dead regardless of what we do.
..

> At 11:25 PM 6/08/98 +1000, Owen, G wrote:

> Ah Ha!

Brendan is using your Light Horse Regimental Command structure (If I remember
correctly you wrote it) with some added PA under the Tactical command squad.
We play on a 5x5 table using the objective markers from DSII deployed as in
those rules. The game can be called under the conditions specified in DSII.
We're doing a senerio game this weekend to see how his PA preforms when there
is one large objective to complete instead of needing to capture a number of
points scattered around the table. I'm predicting it will be a bloody affair
for my troopies.

> Have you tried any games with variations like all troops starting

We are currently using the point system for the Western Suburbs upcoming
tournement (the one in September) and using the method outlined within those
points system for determining the confidence levels and leadership of the
troops.

> Anyway, back to the Close Assaults, I think if you start questioning

I'm holding my own in the games we have had so far, provided his PA doesn't
get to close assault me. If they do the game ends rather rapidly (they are
outfitted with close assault weapons and some flamers to cause terror. as well
as guns).

Last game we played I used my SAS squad (light auto pistols, a flamer, D4
armour which allows them to move as lightly equipped troops) to outflank him
and threaten to close assault his HQ units and also managed to pin his PA down
with a full OU platoon with a Platoon HQ near by to give them extra actions. I
won this time.

SeeYa

> Stuart Murray wrote:

> A suggestion or two...

> If your regular opponent is a fan of PA because he gets better troops

We will probably give your ideas a go in the future but we're currently
playing games as practice for a stargrunt tournament which has certain
restrictions on weapons and a point system to try and balance out the forces.
Due to my like of using non PA troops and my opponents love of using them, I
currently have a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers (could be more now that I think
about it). If he blunders into one of my fire sacks his power armour tends to
die, if he avoids it and gets into close assault range I tend to die.

We have interesting games it just that as my first post commented on, if he
has a single survivng troopie from his PA squad and manages to get it
unsuppressed, he initiates close assault against my 9 man OU squads and since
he tends to be elite or a veteran and carrying close assault weapons he almost
always wins the combat. hence my suggstion for adding extra modifiers for
assaulting a numerically superior force.