Prev: Re: New IF ships Next: Re: New IF ships

RE: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results

From: agoodall@c...
Date: 5 Jul 2001 09:41:33 -0700
Subject: RE: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results

On Wed, 04 July 2001, "Brian Bell" wrote:

> [Bri] Do you add the d12s or just use the highest?

Added them. 

You get the same range of results as in the original rules, but they are
on a bell curve, not a straight line.
> [Bri] Transfer Actions is so powerful. I think that the situation
> could be resolved by declaring a Transfer Action to be a "Pseudo
> Combat Action". Pseudo Combat Actions take the place of a combat
> action (an element may not do a combat action and pseudo combat
> action), but do not result in direct damage to the opposition. This
> limits the power of leaders and encourages them to do something other
> than sit in the corner. If this is too burdensome, then allow a
> transfer action to activate 2 units.

The only problem is that it doesn't fix the "commander in the corner"
issue. The commander still can't keep up with his troops without losing
a potential Transfer Action. In fact, since command units can't do a
Transfer Action and a combat action in the same turn, there's really no
reason to put them anywhere near harm's way. 

The idea was to give command elements a reason to behave more
realistically and stay closer to the troops. Currently they tend to sit
in the corner of the board issuing Transfer Actions. The reasons for
this are:
- Transfer Actions are a huge benefit, and easily the most important
thing a leader can do
- Transfer Actions are such a benefit, you don't want to risk the
wellbeing of your command elements by putting them close to the action
- moving the command element eats up an action, which eliminates a
Transfer Action. This encourages the command element to sit around and
issue Transfer Actions. The less movement the better.
- there is no difference between conducting a Transfer Action 7" away in
an open field and 72" away inside a bunker behind a hill in the middle
of some woods.

The change to the Transfer Action communications roll gives players a
benefit for keeping command elements near the action, or at least in LOS
of their troops. However, this requires moving the command element to
keep up with the troops. Each move action conducted by the command
element eats up a Transfer Action possibility.

Take a Regular 2 leader, for example. If he is within 6" and LOS of his
troops, his chance of conducting a Transfer Action is 100%. But, if he
has to move with his troops, he loses at least half of his Transfer
Actions due to conducting a Movement Action. Therefore, he averages 1
Transfer Action per turn.

If the same Regular 2 leader hides inside a bunker out of harm's way,
his chance of succeeding at a Transfer Action is 75% (exceeding a 2 on a
D8) as per the regular rules. He should average 1.5 Transfers per turn.
With my rules change, this percentage changes to 62.5%, or 1.25
Transfers per turn.

If you give leaders a free move, you bump this percentage up to 2
Transfers per turn (again, assuming he can stay within 6" of his troops
and in LOS). This is a big incentive to stay up close to the troops.

By allowing movement to be combined with certain leader actions, the
leader can still move with the troops without losing the ability to
transfer to them. It had a couple of other side benefits I hadn't
thought of at the time:
- puts in place a mechanism for squads to observe and move, or
communicate and move, at once, though at reduced speed and ability. 
- fixes what many see is a problem with the detached element rules:
requiring a transfer action reduces the main body of a squad to only 1

I thought of simply reducing leaders to 1 Transfer Action per
activation, just as figures only get one combat action per activation.
This forces a free action on them, which could simply be used to keep up
with their troops. I liked it, it was simple and straightforward, and it
toned down Transfer Actions. Tom didn't like the idea, and I could see a
lot of people wanting to have two activations per turn. It also didn't
do anything to correct the detached element issue.

In many ways, I prefer the simpler solution of just dropping potential
Transfer Actions to 1 per commander per activation. 

Get your FREE personalized e-mail at

Prev: Re: New IF ships Next: Re: New IF ships