Prev: RE: Snow Next: Re: GMS vs Infantry

Re: GMS vs Infantry

From: Henrix <henrix@p...>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:27:48 +0100
Subject: Re: GMS vs Infantry

Thomas Barclay, who seems to share my delight in grinding rules

> =======> Actually, if you were paying close attention I was suggesting
> major hit causing d12 impact (not d12*) on one figure. And then D8 vs
> the rest of the squad as per heavy-weapons vs. point targets.

I am sorry, I did misunderstand you. I was reading your proposal as
out a D8 impact vs every squad member with a minor hit.

> =======> As to the counter proposal: 1) Penetration?

That should of course be Impact, sorry for the confusion.

> What's that? We
> have Firepower, Guidance and Impact. If we roll a normal Guidance die
> if it was a FP die, roll a quality die, then give the defender range
> plus cover + IP, I think the normal situation will be like a SAW
> on its own - D8 or D10 Guidance + D8 quality (many cases). If we then
> calculate hits as normal, that's okay. But what impact do we use? The
> of a heavy weapon vs. point target or the D12 (or worse, 4D12 for
> of the weapon itself? Here's my problem with this: If we use the
> penetration, most hits will be kills. If hits are D8, it is useless
> sniping PA which should be a use for it.

I proposed a D12, just like an IAVR, figuring the GMS is using
anti-personnel, not anti-tank, missiles. A D12 Impact  vs D12 Armour
case, as impact vs armour is a closed shift roll) gives a 21% chance of
Kill result. This could well symbolize that the poor bastard was hit
directly by the missile, reducing the amount of different dice used in
same attack.
The drawback of this is of course that a GMS would have the same effect
an IAVR, provided it has superior guidance, except that it needs a
action to use, but that is fine with me, as it gives a slight penalty
firing a weapon at targets it, presumably, is not meant to be fired at.

If you still want to fire an anti-tank round at troops in power armour
(sniping at them), I think the proposal below is good, but I for one
skip the "other hits" part, allowing only one figure to be hit. I don't
think that the parts of powered armoured trooper flying around after
a D8 impact.

> =======> Try again:
> Fire as a normal squad attack using range bands equal to unit quality
> (same as rifles or SAWs). Roll Dx for firepower (where Dx is the
> guidance die). Roll quality. Defender rolls RB die plus cover plus IP.
> If both FP and Q dice beat defending dice, we have a hit. 1 figure is
> attacked at normal penetration (loses the * - means D12 for GMS/P,
> (D12x2) for GMS/L, 4D12 (D12x4) for GMS/H). Other hits are dished out
> D8. If the target is normal infantry, give them one negative shift in
> FP/Guidance (infantry themselves are tough targets). PA, bunkers, etc.
> are easier to hit.
> So, we have a regular GMS/P team firing GMS at infantry in RB2 (15"
> away). The GMS (enhanced) would roll D8 + D8 vs this infantry group,
> we downshift it 1 level because there is no PA or high signature
> targets. D6 + D8 vs. infantry in the open in RB 2 who therefore roll
> If one die beats the defence die, grant a suppression. If two beat,
> grant a suppression, normal number of hits calculated, and the first
> is D12 penetration, the others D8 vs. infantry armour.

Which means that it is worse than a IAVR, even when scoring the same
of potential hits (such as when firing superior guidance missiles at
armour), as the IAVR would roll D12 for all of them.
A GMS/L would give one hit at D12x2 penetr...Impact ;-) which gives us a
chance (vs D12 armour) of a casualty (wound or kill), and the other hits
vs D12) a 29% chance of a casualty, compared to the IAVRs chance of 46%
chance for every hit. (A GMS/H would increase the chance for the first
figure to become a casualty to 90%.)
This gives us the following effect: If we score two potential hits, the
has a 71% chance of inflicting at least one casualty, the GMS/P only
the GMS/L 82% and the GMS/H 93%.  Moreover, if we score more than two
the IAVR will gain on the GMS/L and /P, making it deadlier against power
armour at close range than this sniping with GMSs.

Why not just stick to a D12 for all GMSs, thus letting it fire the same
of rounds as an IAVR? It is also simpler in game terms.

> BTW - I feel quite lucky to know most of the people on this list. They
> are a varied lot, but bring to bear a lot of experience.

I must say that in the short time I've been lurking around I have been
impressed with this list, both for the range of knowledge and experience
represented, and for the generally quite relaxed and amiable atmosphere

who sincerely hopes he is not being to obnoxious, as he sometimes gets
carried away, and who, as is obvious from this message, has to much time
his hands somedays....

Prev: RE: Snow Next: Re: GMS vs Infantry