1) I find the literalistic reading of the rules possibly correct, but entirely
hilarious. It so fails the test of common sense that it is not funny. And it
fails to (in any particular way) limit "gamesmanship".
2) I think Allan has the right of it in describing
Jon's probable rules thought-process. I don't
think Jon envisioned the common use of multiple SAWs in the real world (look
at most of the SAW minis, they don't look like light SAWs like the M249, but
more like (sizewise) an old.30 Browning). I think this situation was covered
by "play the game, not the rules". I don't beleive it is explicitly covered in
the rules (Individual fire of a support weapon is, but not group fire of
support weapons).
So, my 0.02:
1) We know squads in SG2 typically are 6-8
guys with 1 SAW (from the rules). We know in
reality, they are 6-10, often with 2. Pick which
you like more and go with it. You don't need Jon's permission and you've got
it anyway....
2) If you don't allow multiple SAWs to fire as part of a fire action, let me
hypothecate a scenario for you: Squad of 6 (Ldr, 3 x rifle, 2 x SAW). Bad
shooting happens, they lose 4 men (oops, everyone with a rifle is dead). They
make an inspired morale roll and stay in shape to fight. (This can happen
under SG morale rules....). So.... if I move the squad, only one of these guys
can fire because both have support weapons. If I'd had 3 SAWs, one could NEVER
fire. Even at the same target! Fascinating. But if one guy drops his SAW and
picks up a rifle (illegal I suspect in the rules, but possible), then they
could fire in the same action. Utterly senseless.
3) Gamesmanship is not prevented. I build a squad of 10 with 3 rifles (just in
case) and 7 SAWs. (Reminds me of Mr.Hudak's Nuns in the Carnage Con Queso
game...). Heck, give the rifleman each an IAVR so that if they're all alive,
two of them can fire IAVRs (and their buddies carry spares). The unit likely
rolls (while unhurt)
quality + 1 rifle + 2 IAVR + 7 SAW. Is this legal?
I believe so. Is it cheesy enough to be GW? Why yes. If I ran into a player
who wanted to do this outside of the Cheese Game, I'd sic Ben Kenobi and his
Harem on them.... <Speaking of which, someone send me Joel Frock's email
again.... I lost it in the job dislocation and we're in transaction....>
4) So, if situations that could normally occur can cause an "unnatural flow"
(ie parts of the unit can't fire together at the same target), and if it
doesn't prevent cheese (it does not, good sense does), then this rules vaccuum
(or even written restriction) should be replaced with common sense. I'm pretty
sure that common sense dictates whoever in a squad wants to fire at a target
can. The only exception is GMS, but that isn't even terribly sensible, it just
seems unlikely you'd fire GMS at the same targets for infantry small arms and
the mechanics are different so
there are semi-sound reasons for this limit. But
2 SAWs? I see no good reason for a prohibition. If someone insists on being
cheesy, you have three choices: a) convince them not to be by approaching the
discussion from a "what do they do in reality" Pov b) give up, find some less
cheesy gamers c) join them and take up the Call of the Limburger
4) How to handle differing impact weapons: There is a clear precedent in
rifles and other small arms. If I have a squad with a d8 impact rifle and a
d10 impact rifle, the rules say I use d8 impact for everyone (the worst). I
think the same axiom can define how support weapon
impacts are handled - take the worse of the lot.
It isn't as real as using random determination, but we don't do it with rifles
of differing impacts, so we should probably not with support weapons (and it
is thus made simple and internally consistent with the other rules).
Allan, I think this one should be added to the list of things to cover in SG3
(which undoubtedly will arrive sometime after BDS and FMA). And something for
the vacc heads like FT3. And maybe DS3. But it will (eventually) arrive I'm
sure. In the meantime, use common sense. Don't be a slave to the rules. If you
feel compelled to stick to the written rules even when they seem insensate,
then you're a good candidate for many GW games.....
1) I find the literalistic reading of the rules possibly correct, but entirely
hilarious. It so fails the test of common sense that it is not funny. And it
fails to (in any particular way) limit "gamesmanship".
2) I think Allan has the right of it in describing
Jon's probable rules thought-process. I don't
think Jon envisioned the common use of multiple SAWs in the real world (look
at most of the SAW minis, they don't look like light SAWs like the M249, but
more like (sizewise) an old.30 Browning). I think this situation was covered
by "play the game, not the rules". I don't beleive it is explicitly covered in
the rules (Individual fire of a support weapon is, but not group fire of
support weapons).
So, my 0.02:
1) We know squads in SG2 typically are 6-8
guys with 1 SAW (from the rules). We know in
reality, they are 6-10, often with 2. Pick which
you like more and go with it. You don't need Jon's permission and you've got
it anyway....
2) If you don't allow multiple SAWs to fire as part of a fire action, let me
hypothecate a scenario for you: Squad of 6 (Ldr, 3 x rifle, 2 x SAW). Bad
shooting happens, they lose 4 men (oops, everyone with a rifle is dead). They
make an inspired morale roll and stay in shape to fight. (This can happen
under SG morale rules....). So.... if I move the squad, only one of these guys
can fire because both have support weapons. If I'd had 3 SAWs, one could NEVER
fire. Even at the same target! Fascinating. But if one guy drops his SAW and
picks up a rifle (illegal I suspect in the rules, but possible), then they
could fire in the same action. Utterly senseless.
3) Gamesmanship is not prevented. I build a squad of 10 with 3 rifles (just in
case) and 7 SAWs. (Reminds me of Mr.Hudak's Nuns in the Carnage Con Queso
game...). Heck, give the rifleman each an IAVR so that if they're all alive,
two of them can fire IAVRs (and their buddies carry spares). The unit likely
rolls (while unhurt)
quality + 1 rifle + 2 IAVR + 7 SAW. Is this legal?
I believe so. Is it cheesy enough to be GW? Why yes. If I ran into a player
who wanted to do this outside of the Cheese Game, I'd sic Ben Kenobi and his
Harem on them.... <Speaking of which, someone send me Joel Frock's email
again.... I lost it in the job dislocation and we're in transaction....>
4) So, if situations that could normally occur can cause an "unnatural flow"
(ie parts of the unit can't fire together at the same target), and if it
doesn't prevent cheese (it does not, good sense does), then this rules vaccuum
(or even written restriction) should be replaced with common sense. I'm pretty
sure that common sense dictates whoever in a squad wants to fire at a target
can. The only exception is GMS, but that isn't even terribly sensible, it just
seems unlikely you'd fire GMS at the same targets for infantry small arms and
the mechanics are different so
there are semi-sound reasons for this limit. But
2 SAWs? I see no good reason for a prohibition. If someone insists on being
cheesy, you have three choices: a) convince them not to be by approaching the
discussion from a "what do they do in reality" Pov b) give up, find some less
cheesy gamers c) join them and take up the Call of the Limburger
4) How to handle differing impact weapons: There is a clear precedent in
rifles and other small arms. If I have a squad with a d8 impact rifle and a
d10 impact rifle, the rules say I use d8 impact for everyone (the worst). I
think the same axiom can define how support weapon
impacts are handled - take the worse of the lot.
It isn't as real as using random determination, but we don't do it with rifles
of differing impacts, so we should probably not with support weapons (and it
is thus made simple and internally consistent with the other rules).
Allan, I think this one should be added to the list of things to cover in SG3
(which undoubtedly will arrive sometime after BDS and FMA). And something for
the vacc heads like FT3. And maybe DS3. But it will (eventually) arrive I'm
sure. In the meantime, use common sense. Don't be a slave to the rules. If you
feel compelled to stick to the written rules even when they seem insensate,
then you're a good candidate for many GW games.....
Tom,
Did you send the same message three times or am I back to receiving dupes
again?
Daniel
> -----Original Message-----
Hello,
I got three copies, too, and I haven't had any problems with duplicate
messages lately.
I've seen plenty
> --- Rick Rutherford <Rick@esr.com> wrote: