RE: [SG2] Questions

One reason the RFAC & other vehicle weapons are so poor against
infantry, is
the fact it's an antivehicle weapon.  Hitting a vehicle with a direct
hit is
a lot easier than infantry, where you're more likely to try and hit them
with the shell fragments by firing at their feet (sort of like a very
big
grenade).
It may be a rapid fire autocannon, but the meaning is still relative. 
2000
rounds of .50 cal is more likely to hit a grunt than 200 rounds of 2.00
cal
anti-tank rounds.

The SLAM from DS is sort of subsumed by off-table artillery, but when
you're
converting it over for use in SG, give it a blast radius equal to 2x
class &
anti-armour artillery penetration (AT:d12x2, AP:d8).  The only problem
is,
the direct fire rules don't work that well for SG in regard to this, so
you'll need to come to an arrangement with your local players, or use
normal
artillery rules.

'Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
Commodore Alfred K Hole - RNS Indy's Folly [CB]
Captain Nicolette O'Teen - RNMS Golden Spear [CB]
EBD Medusa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gareth Perkins [SMTP:G.T.Perkins@exeter.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 5:38 PM
> 
>   Speaking of the RFAC, why is it such a poor 
> anti-personnel weapon? - all of the vehicle weapons use D8 
> for their 'damage' even the RFAC (which one would expect to 
> be at least more effective) and the DFFG (which was good as 
> I recall in DS2)
> 
>   What happened to the SLAM from DS2 - is it now treated as 
> 'off-table support'?