Prev: Re: [SG2] Vehicle Bail Out Next: Re: New IF ships

RE: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results

From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@d...>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:01:52 -0400
Subject: RE: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:42 PM
> To:
> Subject:	RE: [SG2] New Rules Playtest Results
> On Wed, 04 July 2001, "Brian Bell" wrote:
> > [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
> > 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
> reason to put them anywhere near harm's way. 
[Bri] We misunderstood each other. I think that the range/LOS rules
be used. 
  It was the "Mobile Command Actions" that I was a little uncomfortable
with. They seem to give the commander even more flexibility than before
thus more power). I thought that the transfer action was already almost
powerful (as it is, if used correctly, the most powerful action
  Thus my suggestion that Command Transfer and Off-Board Communications
counted as a "Pseudo Combat Action". This combined with the range/LOS
modifiers (especially if they only get one transfer activation) would
incentive for the commander to not just sit in the corner. However, I
that a commander could just sit in the corner and waste one action each
turn. But I would think that this would encourage a leader to use one
to move and the other to do a command tranfer.

[snip good rules and examples for LOS/Range rules]

> 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
> and in LOS). This is a big incentive to stay up close to the troops.
[Bri] But this could also lead to a leader moving, activtating a unit
firing his weapon. Or Calling in an air strike, moving, and activating
another unit. This seems a bit much to me.

> 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
> of at the time:
> - puts in place a mechanism for squads to observe and move, or
> and move, at once, though at reduced speed and ability. 
[Bri] You can do this already. You just can't observe, move, and do
something else; or move, communicate and do something else.

> - 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
> action.
[Bri] This does need fixed. But I would rather remove the rule that the
detachment must be activated (activate the main squad and detachment at
same time) than give the leader a free move.

> I thought of simply reducing leaders to 1 Transfer Action per
> just as figures only get one combat action per activation. This forces
> 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
> 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. 
[Bri] That is what I was trying to get toward as well. I only grudgingly
added a provision to allow the one command transfer to activate 2 units
I knew some REALLY wanted 2 command activations). 

My comments above marked by [Bri]

Brian Bell

Prev: Re: [SG2] Vehicle Bail Out Next: Re: New IF ships