I had a chance to playtest some SG2 house rules and semi-official rules
changes over the Canada Day weekend. Here are the results of playtesting. If I
get the chance, I'll do an after action report on the scenario.
HEAVY WEAPON ARMOUR PENETRATION
Jon suggested that a soon-to-be official rule is to change the armour
penetration system. The rules state that you compare heavy weapon impact
versus armour class. Penetration is the Impact Die x the size class of the
weapon. Armour is D12 x the armour class of the point target. Jon suggested
that instead of rolling one die and multiplying the result by
the size/armour class, you roll a number of dice equal to the
size/armour class and add up the result (i.e. D12 x 2 becomes 2D12).
Others have tried this, but this was my first attempt. It was an
unqualified success. There were fewer flukey explosions with GMS/Ps
hitting the front armour of a heavy APC. The results seemed more "realistic".
As a side note, it was easier to see, at a glance, who won. It also "felt"
better to roll three dice versus 2 instead of both players rolling 1 die and
multiplying. A big hit, or a lot of armour, physically felt that way due to
the number of dice.
TRANSFER ACTION COMMUNICATION ROLLS
This idea came from Tom B. with my own comments thrown in. This came out
of the thread about the "c-in-c" problem (commander-in-the-corner). We
were looking at ways to encourage command elements to be closer to the troops,
while making things more "realistic".
The Transfer Action command was altered slightly.
1. If the command element is within 6" of the receiving unit _and_ the
receiving unit is in Line Of Sight (LOS), the Transfer Action works without a
communication roll. [This is the standard "within 6 inches" rule from the
rulebook, but only applies if in LOS. The command unit has to be nearby and
able to see the unit it is going to motivate. The commander is essentially
orchestrating things personally.]
2. If the command element is more than 6" _and_ within LOS of the
receiving unit, or the command unit is within Quality Die inches of the
receiving unit _and_ not within LOS, a regular communication roll is
made. The Quality Die used is the commanders. So, a veteran must be within
10", while a green commander must be within 6". [If the commander is on a hill
and watching events through binoculars, it's just a matter of making a
communication roll. Or, if the commander is in the vicinity of the action but
can't see the receiving unit, the commander has a pretty good idea of what's
happening. He still must make a communication roll. This corrects a weirdness
in the regular rules where a commander 7 inches away in a field must make a
communication roll, but a commander 6" away in one building doesn't need to
make a communication roll for a unit in another building, or rolling by in an
APC.]
3. If the command element is outside of Quality Die inches of the
receiving unit _and_ not within LOS, a communication roll is made but at
-1 to the die roll. [This represents the difficulty in commanding a
squad that can't be seen, and when the commander is nowhere near the action.]
In practice, this rule worked well, however the Quality Die range portion
(case #2) was seen as unduly cumbersome. Instead, we went with the following:
1. Within 6" and in LOS, no communication roll. 2. Within 6" and no LOS,
communications roll. 3. Outside of 6" and in LOS, communications roll.
4. Outside of 6" and no LOS, communications roll at -1.
Note that this is cumulative with the "skipping command levels" modifier.
FREE TRANSFER ACTION
One of the problems with the Transfer Action mechanism is that the command
element will lose one Transfer Action for every action it takes doing
something else. This discourages the commander doing anything but riding
around in an APC, or hiding out somewhere, while making transfer actions.
Tom suggested limiting a command element to making, at most, two Transfer
Actions per activation, but the first one is "free" and doesn't cost the
command element an action. So, a command element can make one Transfer for
free, spend an action to do its second Transfer, and still have one more
action left over.
This worked fine at first, but we ran into some weird situations. One command
unit in a bunker conducted two transfer actions and called down an artillery
strike. We thought this was a bit much. Another command unit in an APC
conducted two transfer actions and made a successful Observation action.
The feeling was that the free transfer action violates the spirit of the
rules: 2 actions per leader. However, we also felt that the main problem is
that some actions should be allowed while a unit is moving. The result is the
following rule, which we started to use later in the scenario:
MOBILE LEADER ACTIONS
On page 16 of the rule book are listed the various actions. These are
Motivation Actions and Leader Actions. This rule subdivides Leader Actions
into two subcategories: Stationary and Mobile.
Stationary Leader Actions:
- Rally
- Form Detached Element
- Remove Suppression
Mobile Leader Actions:
- Observe
- Communicate
- Transfer Actions
Mobile Leader Actions count as an action but can be combined with a Move
Action. Stationary Leader Actions behave as listed in the book and can not be
combined with a Move Action.
A Mobile Leader Action does not have to be combined with a Move Action. If it
is not done "on the move", it behaves as listed in the rulebook.
If a Mobile Leader Action _is_ combined with a Move Action, here's what
happens:
1. The unit has the option of moving then conducting the Mobile Leader Action,
or conducting the Action then moving. Either way, the unit must indicate where
it is moving to before it conducts the Action.
2. When the unit moves, it's Movement Die, however, is shifted down 1 and it
can not conduct a combat move. It must move to the designated spot, even if it
decides to move after the Mobile Leader Action and the Action is unsuccessful.
3. The Mobile Leader Action is conducted with the leader's quality die shifted
down 1.
If a unit conducts two Mobile Leader Actions one after another in the same
activation, and both are combined with a Move Action, the unit is subject to
Reaction Fire.
Spotting by firing on a hidden unit is considered a Fire Motivation Action,
not an Observe Mobile Leader Action.
Detached elements are assumed to have a "fire team leader" or "assistant squad
leader", and so they too can conduct Mobile Leader Actions.
Example 1: a platoon is advancing on an enemy position. The platoon leader
element (Regular quality, 2 leadership, D6 movement die) wants to advance with
the platoon, while attempting to make two Transfer Actions. The platoon leader
moves 4" (instead of the usual 6" or D6 x 2") for the first action. The leader
is within 6" of a unit receiving the Transfer Action, so the Transfer Action
works automatically. For the second action, the leader moves another 4". This
time the unit receiving the action is more than 6" away, so a communication
roll is needed. Instead of trying to roll more than a 2 on a D8, the unit must
roll better than a 2 on a D6.
Example 2: a vehicle crew is moving down a road, but they also want to spot
for hidden units as they move. They first conduct a Move action. Usually
vehicles can move 12", but in this case it is limited to up to 10" of
movement. The crew would then attempt an Observe action. Their Quality Die is
shifted down one for the attempt.
Example 3: a squad (Regular 2) forms a detached element. Creating the element
is a Stationary Leader Action, and can not be done while moving. The squad now
has one more action. They conduct a Transfer Action while moving. They
designate their destination, and then conduct the Transfer Action. The
Transfer Action succeeds automatically because the squad is within 6". The
main part of the squad is moved to its destination point, and the detached
element now has 2 actions.
Example 4: the main portion of a squad (Regular 1, D6 movement die) wants to
conduct a Transfer Action on the detached element while moving. The
destination is designated, and the communication roll is attempted with the
Quality Die shifted down 1 from a D8 to a D6. It must roll better than a 1 on
a D6, but it rolls a 1 and fails! The main body of the squad is still moved to
its destination point. For the second action, the squad leader attempts a
second Transfer Action. This time, it's done without moving. The communication
roll is attempted with a D8, and this time it succeeds. The detached element
has two actions. For the first action, it decides to move forward while
observing a hidden counter. The detached element moves 4", then conducts an
Observe action. It rolls a D6 and a D8 (Regular Quality Die shifted down 1,
and D8 sensors). It fails! It then wants to conduct observation by fire. It
can not move while it's doing that, as this is a Fire action. It fires at the
cou! nter. The counter is flipped, and an enemy squad is revealed.
Any comments are welcome. I will probably write these up and post them to my
web site.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of
agoodall@canada.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 16:52
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results
I had a chance to playtest some SG2 house rules and semi-official
rules changes over the Canada Day weekend. Here are the results of
playtesting. If I get the chance, I'll do an after action report on the
scenario.
HEAVY WEAPON ARMOUR PENETRATION
[snip]
Jon suggested that instead of rolling one die and multiplying the
result by the size/armour class, you roll a number of dice equal to
the size/armour class and add up the result (i.e. D12 x 2 becomes
2D12).
[Bri] Do you add the d12s or just use the highest?
[snip]
TRANSFER ACTION COMMUNICATION ROLLS
[snip]
1. Within 6" and in LOS, no communication roll. 2. Within 6" and no LOS,
communications roll. 3. Outside of 6" and in LOS, communications roll.
4. Outside of 6" and no LOS, communications roll at -1.
Note that this is cumulative with the "skipping command levels" modifier.
[Bri] This works well.
FREE TRANSFER ACTION
[snip]
Tom suggested limiting a command element to making, at most, two Transfer
Actions per activation, but the first one is "free" and doesn't cost the
command element an action. So, a command element can make one Transfer for
free, spend an action to do its second Transfer, and still have one more
action left over.
[Bri] I don't care for this it makes leaders even more powerful. I
really don't want this game to become "hunt the leader".
[snip]
However, we also felt that the main problem is that some actions should be
allowed while a unit is moving. The result is the following rule, which we
started to use later in the scenario:
MOBILE LEADER ACTIONS
On page 16 of the rule book are listed the various actions. These are
Motivation Actions and Leader Actions. This rule subdivides Leader Actions
into two subcategories: Stationary and Mobile.
Stationary Leader Actions:
- - Rally
- - Form Detached Element
- - Remove Suppression
Mobile Leader Actions:
- - Observe
- - Communicate
- - Transfer Actions
Mobile Leader Actions count as an action but can be combined with a Move
Action. Stationary Leader Actions behave as listed in the book and can not be
combined with a Move Action.
A Mobile Leader Action does not have to be combined with a Move Action. If it
is not done "on the move", it behaves as listed in the rulebook.
[Bri] Transfer Actions is so powerful. I think that the situation
could be resolved by declaring a Transfer Action to be a "Pseudo Combat
Action". Pseudo Combat Actions take the place of a combat action (an element
may not do a combat action and pseudo combat action), but do not result in
direct damage to the opposition. This limits the power of leaders and
encourages them to do something other than sit in the corner. If this is too
burdensome, then allow a transfer action to activate 2 units.
Also make off-board communication a "pseudo combat action". This
will prevent the leader from moving, activating 2 units and calling in an air
strike.
[snip]
Any comments are welcome. I will probably write these up and post them to my
web site.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
- -----End Original Message-----
My comments above marked by [Bri]
- ---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
- ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO0OgvNOVrCdNYgyBEQKs7QCg4Fq4GDpMQzwwBxzVG1Gpx6JT+FIAnitg
E86/+2o57IocisAQpHipp/Tg
=JOa3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:52 AM, agoodall@canada.com
> [SMTP:agoodall@canada.com] wrote:
Shouldn't this be a +1 modifier? (added to the leadership level?)
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all
[FITS-DP] World Cup Team: Australia II
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> Jon suggested that a soon-to-be official rule is to change the armour
We use this in all games. It works well. We prefer it to the original ruling.
> At 7:03 PM -0400 7/4/01, Brian Bell wrote:
What if you allowed the number of transferable actions based on the leader
quality? Expert Sgts (Lance Cpls too?) and Officers as virtual whirlwinds of
activity and 3 transferrable actions. The average guys, well, just average.
And the abysmally slow and stupid Butter Bars (You can't get lost without LT)
and dumb ncos (the 3's) only one action. Force effectiveness is tied closely
with commander grade.
> On Wed, 04 July 2001, "Brian Bell" wrote:
> [Bri] Do you add the d12s or just use the highest?
Added them.
You get the same range of results as in the original rules, but they are on a
bell curve, not a straight line.
> [Bri] Transfer Actions is so powerful. I think that the situation
The only problem is that it doesn't fix the "commander in the corner" issue.
The commander still can't keep up with his troops without losing a potential
Transfer Action. In fact, since command units can't do a Transfer Action and a
combat action in the same turn, there's really no reason to put them anywhere
near harm's way.
The idea was to give command elements a reason to behave more realistically
and stay closer to the troops. Currently they tend to sit in the corner of the
board issuing Transfer Actions. The reasons for this are:
- Transfer Actions are a huge benefit, and easily the most important
thing a leader can do
- Transfer Actions are such a benefit, you don't want to risk the
wellbeing of your command elements by putting them close to the action
- moving the command element eats up an action, which eliminates a
Transfer Action. This encourages the command element to sit around and issue
Transfer Actions. The less movement the better.
- there is no difference between conducting a Transfer Action 7" away in
an open field and 72" away inside a bunker behind a hill in the middle of some
woods.
The change to the Transfer Action communications roll gives players a benefit
for keeping command elements near the action, or at least in LOS of their
troops. However, this requires moving the command element to keep up with the
troops. Each move action conducted by the command element eats up a Transfer
Action possibility.
Take a Regular 2 leader, for example. If he is within 6" and LOS of his
troops, his chance of conducting a Transfer Action is 100%. But, if he has to
move with his troops, he loses at least half of his Transfer Actions due to
conducting a Movement Action. Therefore, he averages 1 Transfer Action per
turn.
If the same Regular 2 leader hides inside a bunker out of harm's way, his
chance of succeeding at a Transfer Action is 75% (exceeding a 2 on a D8) as
per the regular rules. He should average 1.5 Transfers per turn. With my rules
change, this percentage changes to 62.5%, or 1.25 Transfers per turn.
If you give leaders a free move, you bump this percentage up to 2 Transfers
per turn (again, assuming he can stay within 6" of his troops and in LOS).
This is a big incentive to stay up close to the troops.
By allowing movement to be combined with certain leader actions, the leader
can still move with the troops without losing the ability to transfer to them.
It had a couple of other side benefits I hadn't thought of at the time:
- puts in place a mechanism for squads to observe and move, or
communicate and move, at once, though at reduced speed and ability.
- fixes what many see is a problem with the detached element rules:
requiring a transfer action reduces the main body of a squad to only 1 action.
I thought of simply reducing leaders to 1 Transfer Action per activation, just
as figures only get one combat action per activation. This forces a free
action on them, which could simply be used to keep up with their troops. I
liked it, it was simple and straightforward, and it toned down Transfer
Actions. Tom didn't like the idea, and I could see a lot of people wanting to
have two activations per turn. It also didn't do anything to correct the
detached element issue.
In many ways, I prefer the simpler solution of just dropping potential
Transfer Actions to 1 per commander per activation.
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] We misunderstood each other. I think that the range/LOS rules
should be used. It was the "Mobile Command Actions" that I was a little
uncomfortable with. They seem to give the commander even more flexibility than
before (and thus more power). I thought that the transfer action was already
almost too powerful (as it is, if used correctly, the most powerful action
possible).
Thus my suggestion that Command Transfer and Off-Board Communications
be
counted as a "Pseudo Combat Action". This combined with the range/LOS
modifiers (especially if they only get one transfer activation) would give
incentive for the commander to not just sit in the corner. However, I guess
that a commander could just sit in the corner and waste one action each turn.
But I would think that this would encourage a leader to use one action to move
and the other to do a command tranfer.
[snip good rules and examples for LOS/Range rules]
> If you give leaders a free move, you bump this percentage up to 2
[Bri] But this could also lead to a leader moving, activtating a unit
and firing his weapon. Or Calling in an air strike, moving, and activating
another unit. This seems a bit much to me.
> By allowing movement to be combined with certain leader actions, the
[Bri] You can do this already. You just can't observe, move, and do
something else; or move, communicate and do something else.
> - fixes what many see is a problem with the detached element rules:
[Bri] This does need fixed. But I would rather remove the rule that the
detachment must be activated (activate the main squad and detachment at the
same time) than give the leader a free move.
> I thought of simply reducing leaders to 1 Transfer Action per
[Bri] That is what I was trying to get toward as well. I only grudgingly
added a provision to allow the one command transfer to activate 2 units (as I
knew some REALLY wanted 2 command activations).
My comments above marked by [Bri]
---
> On Thu, 05 July 2001, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
> [Bri] We misunderstood each other. I think that the range/LOS rules
Okay, with you so far!
> Thus my suggestion that Command Transfer and Off-Board
I think it was the "pseudo combat action" concept that I was unclear about. If
it just takes the place of a combat action (i.e. firing a weapon), it doesn't
do much. A leader will rarely be in a position to fire at anything.
However, if you mean that as a "pseudo combat action" the leader can only do
one per activation, then I'm right there with you!
> [Bri] But this could also lead to a leader moving, activtating a unit
The more I think of it, the more it seems like a bit much for me, too. It's
tempered by movement being 4" not 6 or D6 x 2, and by the communication roll
being shifted down one. But it does still make a commander awfully powerful.
I'm really, really leaning towards one Transfer Action per activation, making
it very similar to a Fire action.
> [Bri] This does need fixed. But I would rather remove the rule that
I can see why Jon put it in there, though. Here's a cheesy thing to do: detach
3 figures out of a 6 figure squad. Next turn, run half the squad from cover
across an open space. Next turn, move the first half into cover, and the
second half into the open. At no time does more than half the squad show
itself. Even if you took fire for a total of 4 figures casualties, you never
hit that magic "took more casualties at one time than you have figures
remaining" morale check. This is because morale works on the whole squad.
You get the best of both worlds: the advantage of manoeuvring of a small
squad, but the advantage of morale in a bigger squad.
My own morale house rules fix this to a certain extent, as a morale test is
made once the squad loses half or more of its original size. That may be
enough to offset this problem. Then, you do away with a Detached Unit.
Instead, you have a Detach Action that creates two new squads out of one old
one. Forget about transfer actions and detached squads, and let them operate
independently.
I'll have to think about this to see if there are any negative ramifications.
Hi,
> Date: 4 Jul 2001 13:52:16 -0700
<snip>
> HEAVY WEAPON ARMOUR PENETRATION
this works really well and is a good idea.
> TRANSFER ACTION COMMUNICATION ROLLS
<snip>
> 1. Within 6" and in LOS, no communication roll.
modifier.
> [quoted text omitted]
this is simple and easy to administer. good idea!
> FREE TRANSFER ACTION
<snip>
> MOBILE LEADER ACTIONS
My feeling on this is that it will allow the leader to do too much.
According to this, if I read your suggestion correctly, the leader could, in
one activation and using only ONE action: move, transfer an action,
observe something, and communicate with higher headquarters. Sure,
there would be penalties for the rolls, but that's a *lot* of extra stuff
going on.
I think this is probably too much - though I would certainly have to try
it in play to see.
> Date: 4 Jul 2001 14:09:36 -0700
The section "Casualties to Vehicle Occupants" on page 39 discusses this. If
crew or passengers survive, they are out of the wreck (bailing out comes as
part of the survival roll).
"...thus in the example above the MDC/3 would have an effective class fo
6,
and only troops rolling 7 or better would get out of the wreck..."
The important bit is the "get out of the wreck" at the end there. If a figure
makes their survival roll, they "get out of the wreck".
Then you go on to see what happened to the casualties (who didn't get out)
- on a 1-3 they are dead, on a 4-6 they are wounded, but still in the
wreck.
I figure that the intent of this rule was to encompasses both a chance to be
hurt during the initial damage to the vehicle and the chance to have bailed
out quickly once the vehicle was hit.
> There's also a question of whether or not the occupants take a
That is a good one. When a vehicle is suppressed, people in it can't get out
or operate externally mounted weapons. But the vehicle can otherwise keep
acting as normal.
It doesn't say anywhere that if the vehicle is penetrated and
crew/passengers escape, they should be suppressed.
It makes sense, however, that leaping from a burning vehicle after the
traumatic experiece of having it blow up around you would be somewhat
startling, at least. We play it that once a vehicle is destroyed or disabled
and the crew is out, they *are* suppressed, and have to spend an action
removing the suppression marker.
> After thinking about it, here's the situation we came up with:
This sounds good.
I like the idea that they have to take a confidence test to stay in the
vehicle - it would be more likely that they would want to go running
when it was hit.
But what happens if the vehicle is attacked again, by an enemy who knows there
is a squad hiding in it?
Would you roll as normal, and have "disabled" or "destroyed" results as
normal?
How many times could you "disable" a vehicle with a squad hiding in it before
it doesn't provide cover, or is too dangerously damaged for a squad to stay
in.
How about this:
if a vehicle is disabled, the occupants can stay in it (if they pass their
confidence test). ANY further penetrating hit on the vehicle (either a disable
or a destroy result) causes the vehicle to be destroyed, and the occupants
have to make another set of survival rolls.
and it does make sense that if they stick around inside, they should be
suppressed.
> At 3:01 PM -0400 7/5/01, Bell, Brian K (Contractor) wrote:
Why not dispense with the 3 actions to the leader and give the Squad Leader
the standard 2 actions and that detached team a single action. They aren't
going to be as effective right? Its a Corporal or Lance
Corporal leading that sub-team now right (assuming a Sgt or Corporal
is leading the squad)? 1 Action would make sense, no?
Roll a random leadership value when the unit is detached.
> At 2:39 PM -0700 7/5/01, agoodall@canada.com wrote:
Anyone remember the Lt Col (Lt Col Bill Kilgore) from Apocalypse Now wandering
around transferring actions during that transplant of the South Vietnamese
village? Then there was the Air Cav Battle over that VC village.
> I'm really, really leaning towards one Transfer Action per
How about giving higher ups the ability to transfer 2? ie the highest leader
on the table has the option for transferring two.
> > [Bri] This does need fixed. But I would rather remove the rule that
You know this does reflect how you move a squad over open ground. The squad
doesn't move as an entire unit. They go across singly and in pairs. If one guy
starts taking fire the rest aren't going to go dashing across the fire lane.
Now, the process does take longer does it not in that you have to separate the
squad into the smaller teams and move men across.
Naturally if they hoof it, then they get caught out in the open all bunched
up.
> My own morale house rules fix this to a certain extent, as a morale
You saw my comment on giving the detached squad an single action
auto-magically ever turn right? Basicly the Lt, Sgt, SqdLdr has sent
corporal Jones over there with Pvt Johnson with a SAW. Cpl Jones knows to keep
an eye out for the Eurie patrol, report when they get close and provide flank
cover for the main body of the platoon.
I don't see that people should be encouraged to split a squad from its larger
organizational element down to smaller units and have it all work just the
same. Cpl Jones isn't going to be as good as the Squad leader is at leading
all the guys. Thats why he's an assistant Squad Leader and really only has to
worry about running a small fire team. Maybe 3 guys in addition to himself.
But I don't expect him to be able to run the Team and call fire. One action
over two makes sense.
Should they activate at the same time as the main body of the squad? Hmm I
dunno. I sort of think that they should. The detached element just gives you
the ability to run things a bit different. OPs, separate posts on the
perimeter of a fire base and flank security teams on an ambush. Oh and the two
point men leading a platoon.
Hi,
> Date: 4 Jul 2001 13:52:16 -0700
<snip>
> HEAVY WEAPON ARMOUR PENETRATION
this works really well and is a good idea.
> TRANSFER ACTION COMMUNICATION ROLLS
<snip>
> 1. Within 6" and in LOS, no communication roll.
modifier.
> [quoted text omitted]
this is simple and easy to administer. good idea!
> FREE TRANSFER ACTION
<snip>
> MOBILE LEADER ACTIONS
My feeling on this is that it will allow the leader to do too much.
According to this, if I read your suggestion correctly, the leader could, in
one activation and using only ONE action: move, transfer an action,
observe something, and communicate with higher headquarters. Sure,
there would be penalties for the rolls, but that's a *lot* of extra stuff
going on.
I think this is probably too much - though I would certainly have to try
it in play to see.
> Date: 4 Jul 2001 14:09:36 -0700
The section "Casualties to Vehicle Occupants" on page 39 discusses this. If
crew or passengers survive, they are out of the wreck (bailing out comes as
part of the survival roll).
"...thus in the example above the MDC/3 would have an effective class fo
6,
and only troops rolling 7 or better would get out of the wreck..."
The important bit is the "get out of the wreck" at the end there. If a figure
makes their survival roll, they "get out of the wreck".
Then you go on to see what happened to the casualties (who didn't get out)
- on a 1-3 they are dead, on a 4-6 they are wounded, but still in the
wreck.
I figure that the intent of this rule was to encompasses both a chance to be
hurt during the initial damage to the vehicle and the chance to have bailed
out quickly once the vehicle was hit.
> There's also a question of whether or not the occupants take a
That is a good one. When a vehicle is suppressed, people in it can't get out
or operate externally mounted weapons. But the vehicle can otherwise keep
acting as normal.
It doesn't say anywhere that if the vehicle is penetrated and
crew/passengers escape, they should be suppressed.
It makes sense, however, that leaping from a burning vehicle after the
traumatic experiece of having it blow up around you would be somewhat
startling, at least. We play it that once a vehicle is destroyed or disabled
and the crew is out, they *are* suppressed, and have to spend an action
removing the suppression marker.
> After thinking about it, here's the situation we came up with:
This sounds good.
I like the idea that they have to take a confidence test to stay in the
vehicle - it would be more likely that they would want to go running
when it was hit.
But what happens if the vehicle is attacked again, by an enemy who knows there
is a squad hiding in it?
Would you roll as normal, and have "disabled" or "destroyed" results as
normal?
How many times could you "disable" a vehicle with a squad hiding in it before
it doesn't provide cover, or is too dangerously damaged for a squad to stay
in.
How about this:
if a vehicle is disabled, the occupants can stay in it (if they pass their
confidence test). ANY further penetrating hit on the vehicle (either a disable
or a destroy result) causes the vehicle to be destroyed, and the occupants
have to make another set of survival rolls.
and it does make sense that if they stick around inside, they should be
suppressed.
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:40:38 -0400, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Hi,
Hey, there.
> I think this is probably too much - though I would certainly have to
I've changed my mind and think it's too much. *L*
> The section "Casualties to Vehicle Occupants" on page 39 discusses
This is where I asked the question. The rules don't specifically say how the
figures get out of the wreck, whether it's on their own activation or
automatically. You're inferring that they get out for free with bailing out
being part of the survival roll.
The only mention of "getting out of the wreck" is during that example. The
reason anyone rolling 6 or less won't get out is because they are dead or
wounded. I read that as part of Jon's "plain speech" writing style, emphasized
by it being in the example, not specified as a rule. No mention is made if the
unit is considered suppressed, activated, or anything like that.
Having said that, I originally played it that squads got a free bail out. I
think I was inferring the same as you. However, I saw some weirdness in this,
where a vehicle blew up, the squad bailed with casualties, immediately
activated and attacked the squad that shot the vehicle. They took a Confidence
Test, but the rules suggest they do NOT get a suppression (at the very least).
So, therefore I let them bail for free, but they got suppressed for being shot
at.
> But what happens if the vehicle is attacked again, by an enemy who
The attacker can attack the vehicle even if its disabled. I let them do this
anyway, as there are times when you might want to completely destroy a vehicle
for victory conditions.
> Would you roll as normal, and have "disabled" or "destroyed" results as
That's what I've done in the past. Although I think for one game I had a
second disable count as a destroy to take into account the fact it's just a
sitting duck at that point. This makes some logical sense, as it's the vehicle
equivalent of two wounds equalling a death.
> How many times could you "disable" a vehicle with a squad hiding in it
As per the above rule, twice. *L* The second penetrating hit would destroy it.
> if a vehicle is disabled, the occupants can stay in it (if they pass
*L* Okay, so I'm answering as I read and we've just concurred!