RE: [SG] Mech Cavalry

hank you both for the feedback.

I had thought that the vehicle would becove a fire-magnet, and thus,
negate 
some of the advantage of going 'In Possition' behind it. 

I will accept your wisdom and remove the paragraph (or adapt it to allow
a 
dismounted MechCav to go 'In Possition' in the open. 

I should also add a paragraph that Mechanized Cavalry Vehicles (MCV) are

treated as Armor 0, open top vehicles for purposes of fire targeted 
specifically against the vehicle. 

Any other comments? Is there other areas that I did not address, that
should 
be addressed? 

 -----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/
 ----- 

PS. I appologize if this is duplicated. My first post appears to have
gotten 
lost. 

 -----Original Message-----
From:	Barclay, Tom [SMTP:tomb@bitheads.com]
Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:10 PM
To:	Gzg Digest (E-mail)
Subject:	Mech Cavalry and Holy Bats 

Inestimable author, I must disagree with thee. Motorcycle units that
have historically been toyed with have learned how to drop the bike, get
behind it, and use it as cover and a firing rest if need be. Ideally one
does not like to have this situation occur, but it hardly involves
abandoning the vehicle. If you have a large metallic object, you're
never
really in the open - you bring your own cover. :) 

 -----Original Message-----
From:	Allan Goodall [SMTP:awg@sympatico.ca]
Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:34 PM
To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject:	Re: Mech Cavalry and Holy Bats 

That was the one thing that stuck out with me, too. I agree. They should
be
allowed to go In Position. -----