SG2 support weapons fire

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.....