From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:43:04 -0500
Subject: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #2190 (Prioritizing targets in SG2 and Initiative card draw)
> On 4 Oct 2004 at 23:00, The GZG Digest wrote: > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT) I've never been all that crazy about SG2's priority rules. I understand their use, as they help deflect the problems of the "God's eye view". NSL squad on a hill. Two Phalon squads in bushes. Firs Phalon squad fires, suppresses NSL squad. NSL squad removes suppression. Which Phalon does the NSL squad fire at? Realistically, probably the one that fired already. By the rules, definitely the one that fired. By player choice, definitely the one that _didn't_ fire, as it still has 2 actions left and the other has no actions left. The rule prevents the player from doing something potentially unrealistic because the player knows one squad has done all it can for that turn (Transfer Actions not withstanding) and the other squad has yet to activate. There are three reasons I am not crazy about the rule. 1) Everything in an SG2 turn is thought to happen simultaneously, or near simultaneously, not sequentially. If the first Phalon squad fires, and later in the turn the second Phalon squad moves, it could mean one fired and the other moved in sequence, or it could represent one moving and one firing simultaneously. If it's simultaneous, why couldn't the squad that is moving (and thus, in that moment, is potentially the more dangerous squad) be fired at? Is it more realistic to fire at the squad in cover while ignoring the squad moving in the open? As the SG2 rules are written, the NSL squad can't do anything against the first Phalon squad if the NSL activate second. The first Phalon squad gets its actions without worry of being interfered with. If that's the case, why not allow the NSL squad to fire on the second squad as a counter to that problem? 2) The rules are kind of clunky. The game runs quite smoothly until you run into arguments over target priority, one of the few areas in the game where you will get vehement arguments. 3) I use Overwatch rules. Overwatch rules can be problematic if you insist on strict adherence to the priority rules. "I fire my NSL sniper, who has been on overwatch, at the moving unit." "Oh, no, you can't. You have to fire at the unit that fired!" "Then what's the point in using overwatch?" I found that ignoring the priority rules really didn't adversely affect the game. I started ignoring the rules when I was teaching the game to new players. I found that through running convention games that the priority rules had a very minor affect on the way the game turned out. Eventually I considered them "optional" rules, and I haven't looked back. The priority rules can take away from the tactics of the game. Sure, choosing the second, inactivated squad is "gamey" compared to firing at the more obvious target (the one that fired). Choosing between the two, though, adds a tactical choice for the player. "Do I fire on the squad that hasn't done anything, or the squad that already fired?" D'uh, no big choice there. But, how about, "Do I fire at the militia squad that hasn't activated yet, or do I fire at the PA squad that _has_ fired?" That's a more difficult choice, particularly if a Transfer Action has already been completed. I will concede a point here: the target priority rules can add some tactical complexity of its own. If the NSL were up against a militia squad and a Veteran squad, the player has to consider the priority rules when he decides which squad to activate first. Does he activate the militia first, making them primary target, or does he activate the Veteran squad, which has a better chance of suppressing the target? This, however, strikes me of being just as "gamey" as giving the players the choice of target. You can force a target on the other player by the order you activate your units. In my experience, the priority rules can produce effects just as cheesy as those the priority rules hoped to eliminate. I would suggest that the original poster try playing a game or two without using the priority rules and see how it works out. He may find there are fewer arguments while increasing the pace of the game. > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:45:25 -0400 I agree with Chris/Laserlight (who explained to Doug the difference between his rule and the original). It's actually easier to play the game Chris' way, while increasing tension. ---