still FMA-40k

Well, my thoughs were that you would give them a bonus in the reaktion test,
and after all most assault squads HAVE CCwpns, which means that thier shooting
range is rather limited already, so, you don't wanna shoot with them anyway.

I understand that the SGII game is more a "shooty" game than wh 40k
(which isn't?)....

Well, just some thoughts...

> Magnus Alexandersson wrote:

> I understand that the SGII game is more a "shooty" game than wh 40k

Yes you could say that. In that SG/DS was designed to more closely model
real
tactics extrapolated in the near (200-400 years) future. And real
tactics palce fire as the way to victory over hand to hand combat. So it
figures.

Magnus Alexandersson skrev:

> Well, my thoughs were that you would give them a bonus in the reaktion

> test,

Should you get a reaction test bonus just because you have a sword? I
don't think so (I know for sure that *I* personally don't get one - not
against ranged weapons, anyway <g>). I'd rather just make assault troops
like Banshees etc (if you use GW models) high-quality units overall;
that both gives them a good chance in the reaction tests and makes them very
hard in CC (coupled with their CC weapons, of course).

Question to the rest of the list (or, better still, Jon or Mike): If a
model has both a sword and a auto-pistol, does it get the CCW modifiers
for both Close Combat firearms *and* Close Combat edged weapons (ie, a total
of 2 shifts)?

> and after all most assault squads HAVE CCwpns, which means that

Well, yes you do - not as a primary tactic, but you're definitely going
to want to use those pistols.

> I understand that the SGII game is more a "shooty" game than wh 40k

Yes and no. You shoot more in SGII, but tend to inflict less real damage
- the usual result when you open fire at a unit is that its soldiers
drop prone and refuse to move for a while. Wholesale slaughters of troops in
open terrain (as many 40K battles involving Orks seem to be) aren't very
common in SGII. This is particularly true if the enemy is smart enough to
use cover properly :-/

In order to inflict serious casualties on the enemy, you have to call in
artillery support - or send in a close assault. Getting artillery
support can take a lot of time and isn't able to handle all situations anyway,
so the close assault gets important.

Later,

Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > I understand that the SGII game is more a "shooty" game than wh 40k

I take one exception to this comment. A typical section of eight guys with
modern rifles and a saw can put out a lot of firepower with a high impact
value. Casualties from such massed fire are quite likely in all but the most
heavy armour, at moderate ranges. Closing to close assault against such troops
can be very difficult unless the GM has went out of his way to lay out a
battlefield to encourage this. And then, as defender, you'd have cut down the
offending trees to
give yourself a free-fire zone (so such battlefields only make sense
really during encounter style gaming). I've noted the arty dice isn't that big
(d8 is it?) and therefore at close ranges I'd say the massed fire of a section
is more likely to cause casualties. Unless of course you have smaller sections
(why? It sucks for morale
and FP and 8-10 seems a sort of normal figure... certainly no less
than 5) or an ungodly quantity of artillery. Volume of fire of any variety
always counts! The point is, I think, that in SG2 one is required to come up
with a good use of cover, fire and manoevre and combined arms to close with
and destroy the enemy effectively without suffering large casualty figures.
Charges into fully automatic weapons are suicidal and poor use of cover is
too. Plus, weapons actually have some range.... and good effects vs armour....
hence the effect of fire in the game is more pronounced.

Tom.
/************************************************

> On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Magnus Alexandersson skrev:
that
> both gives them a good chance in the reaction tests and makes them

What I meant was that a specialist squad like the Assaultsquads, Aspect
CC versions would have a bonus to the reaction test, not b/ of armament
but 'cuz they KNOW they will win IF they get into CC with the enemy. That's
why they should have that bonus.

Picture Magnus standing, wielding a sword (wooden, not strong enough) and a
solid tin can with a portable flamethrower in one hand and a Chainsaw in the
other bouncing in 40 meter strides thanks to the blow torch strapped

to his back...

Another question... Jumppacks, are there any rules for them?

> In order to inflict serious casualties on the enemy, you have to call
Then why not special CC troops, that can hit a position hard and "cleanse and
burn" alittle;P

> At 06:19 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
> Plus, weapons

The difference being that artillery tends to wipe out whole squads with one
go, whereas infantry fire usually takes several turns...

> Tom.

Magnus, it sounds like what you are looking for is not better CA (Close
Assault) weapons, but better troops. Give your CA troops a higher level of
training & leadership. I could see some of the Eldar types being
Vet/Elite
1s. Real tough customers. Of course, I'd want my Imperial Terminators to be
similar...

As for jump packs, I haven't seen anything about that lately - you may
want to check the archives.

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]

> Magnus Alexandersson wrote:

> > Should you get a reaction test bonus just because you have a sword?
I
> > don't think so (I know for sure that *I* personally don't get one -
that
> > both gives them a good chance in the reaction tests and makes them

> CC versions would have a bonus to the reaction test, not b/ of

> but 'cuz they KNOW they will win IF they get into CC with the enemy.

You have just described the difference between Veterans and Regulars, or
better still Elites and Regulars - they are a lot more confident than
their opponents. This is in the rules already. Sure, they're better at
shooting as well *IF* you give them long-ranged weapons - but if their
ranged weapons are pistols, the emphasis will be on close range fighting.

IIRC, an Assault Marine has exactly the same stats as a Devastator in WH40K;
according to the Eldar Codex the (shooting) Dire Avengers have the
same stats as the (close combat) Striking Scorpions or (fast-moving
CC/close shooting) Swooping Hawks - the *only* difference between them
is their equipment. The same applies in SGII.

> Picture Magnus standing, wielding a sword (wooden, not strong enough)
and
> a solid tin can with a portable flamethrower in one hand and a

Most of my line troops aren't armed with boffer weapons <g>

> Another question... Jumppacks, are there any rules for them?

Not in the rulebook, no - it only covers orbital insertion/high altitude
drops. I know I've seen 40K-style jump gear discussed on the list - IIRC
it was something like "double combat move (4 dice), but ignore all terrain
effects (including cover)". It should be in the archives somewhere.

> > In order to inflict serious casualties on the enemy, you have to

I just described the reason why...

> You have just described the difference between Veterans and Regulars,

Not that I want to enter a 40K discussion, but in general terms, I don't have
a problem with specialist assault troops getting close combat shifts without
upping troop quality. I don't want my Assault Squads to be expert long range
fire troops just because they've had
CC training. Now, the problem you are stuck with is morale - they
should probably have the Veteran morale if they are highly trained, but not
the effects of veterans in long range combat. More food for thought since I'm
already looking at specialist troop types like EW
specialists, combat engineers, anti-armour specialists, and the like.

Tom.

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> > You have just described the difference between Veterans and

<G> My point with the post you quoted was that in *WH40K*, the only difference
between elite CC troops and elite ranged troops is the
equipment they have - *not* weapon skill or morale (true for Space
Marines, Imperial Guard and Eldar; haven't had time to check Orks yet, and I
don't think it is true for the 'Nids or Chaos).

A SM Devastator has the same WS and BS, and Ld, as an Assault trooper. A Dark
Reaper has the same WS and BS, though lower M and I (both due to
heavier armour - ie, equipment rather than training), as a Striking
Scorpion or Howling Banshee (again Shooter vs Close Assault).

The same effect applies in SGII. If you give your assault squads close
combat weapons - swords, pistols, shotguns, flamers - instead of assault
rifles, they won't *be* very effective long range fire troops *because
they don't have long-range fire weapons*.

Why do we need to introduce special morale rules for assault squads in SGII,
when not even WH40K has such rules for them?

Regards,

Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> The same effect applies in SGII. If you give your assault squads close

Except that several units I have seen which are Close Assault
Specialists have made use of things like the CAR-15 shortened assault
rifle (which would give them good ranged fire capability). I don't think the
answer is solely (at least to my way of thinking) to restrict this to a "what
gun do you have in your hand" argument.

> Why do we need to introduce special morale rules for assault squads in

I said I didn't want to talk 40K. I was replying to comments on it, but I
wanted to focus on the idea of specialist assault troops. And the fact is you
don't need special rules if you don't want em. But then you're relying on your
answer above to differentiate the assault specialists by what they carry. I
don' t find that satisfactory. But YMMV.

/************************************************