Prev: Re: [FT] New FAC? Was "New IF ships" Next: Re: [FT] New FAC? Was "New IF ships"

SG2 leaders, bail outs, and GZG rules clarifications {LONG}

From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@f...>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:06:56 -0400
Subject: SG2 leaders, bail outs, and GZG rules clarifications {LONG}

GZG rules clarifications compendia:

Bad plan. Two reasons. 

First, the strength of the game system is that 
people can play it the way they want. This is not 
the "drones only" game that GW releases. Feel 
free to sit down with your group and agree on 
any contentious issues. If you can't make 
decisions and enjoy living with them, the group 
has some problems of its own beyond the 
scope of the game. People tend to use so 
many house rules anyway (not often to address 
loopholes, mostly for flavour as they see it) that 
this wouldn't (IMO) serve a big purpose. 

Reason number two has three letters many of 
us FT players have come to loathe: S-F-B. They 
provided rules, clarifications, rulings, 
interpretations, analyses, tactical term papers, 
additional subrules, etc. Please God Save Me if 
Jon even considers this. Plus Jon can make less 
than optimal decisions even when playtesting is 
involved (anyone remember MT KV costings?). 
If he was answering questions off the cuff or 
even with help from the oft-contentious playtest 
group, he's gonna introduce a problem here 
and there as he "fixes" others. And people 
won't agree with the fixes he picks, so they'll do 
their own thing anyway. So, just learn to resolve 
matters at the gaming table amicably without a 
resort Deus Ex Cathedra. It's far easier. And 
easier on Jon, who has BDS, FMASk, DS3, FT3, 
and a pile of sculpting on his plate already. And 
if this plan were to delay one of these long 
awaited products, I'm sure he'd cause froth in 
this community. 

Bail Outs:

My thoughts:
1) Armour crew perform badly as infantry
2) Bailing out of a vehicle should be difficult in 
proportion to how blowed up the vehicle is 
(simulating how much time you had to get out 
3) Bailing out of a vehicle is traumatic - you 
could have died! And someone very nearby, 
you probably aren't sure where, is very 
seriously trying to kill you. Not good for the 
mental health. 

So, what does this mean:
1) If armour crew (as opposed to infantry) bails 
out, they automatically lose 1 quality level (they 
can do infantry stuff, just badly - imagine 
infantry trying to operate a 100mm Gauss 

3) Crew or troops bailing out also get to drop 
a morale level from having their vehicle shot out 
from under them. (This last I inflict on infantry 
as well, though they don't drop quality). Plus of 
course any casualty based morale or 
suppression effects caused by deaths in the 
bailout attempt. In fact, I'd say this penalty 
should be applied to troops that don't bail out 
(assuming it isn't enforced) but have their 
vehicle temporarily or permanently disabled 
around them by enemy fire. That isn't going to 
be a good feeling either. 

2) When a major impact is scored on a vehicle, 
I double the bail out rolls. Otherwise people 
seemed to survive far too easily. 

As for staying in a systems down vehicle (a 
dead duck for a turn or two), make a reaction 
check (1/2/4 by mot hi/med/lo). Similarly for a 
suspension hit vehicle. For a disabled vehicle, 
make this test at +1. If you fail, bailing out you 

I'd place a suppression on any bailing unit -
effectively they were hit by fire. Losses may also 
necessitate a casualty-based morale check.  I'd 
place a second suppression (and 
commensurate morale check) if they lose the 
squad leader. This is more than enough and 
more or less implicitly follows other rules. No 
magic suppressions applied. Combine this with 
a basic morale penalty for having your ride 
killed out from under you, and you're not a 
happy camper. 

Leader hide-out-itis:
1) I like the rules Allan and I worked up for 
penalizing command transfers. The reason the 
penalty is only 1 kind of assumes a high level of 
computer aided situational awareness. If the 
troops have crappy kit, maybe this should be a 
2 (the leader has even less clue what troops he 
can't see are doing). The fact that many of 
these circumstances require a comms roll nicely 
goes in hand with EW units. If you don't stay 
close to your troops to hand direct, you're 
gonna get jammed. 
2) Other reasons for a leader not to hide out at 
the back that I use: First, I modify rally rolls by 
+1 difficulty if the officer isn't there in person 
("What sir? I'm not receiving you. Your signal is 
weak. What? ...Withdraw? What? Pulling out!"), 
snipers, random unspotted enemy units 
appearing when the CO has no protection 
(D'oh! and you thought you knew the enemy 
OB... silly boy!), make leader roll a quality check 
for a reorg he can't see (esp if trying to detach 
or something), artillery ("Hmmm... we seem to 
be getting a lot of comms from this map 
reference - seems a good place for a mortar"). 
Generally, I think you'd try to (in the early 
stages of a battle) conceal forces from one 
another and radio silence might well be a part 
of it. So having the officer with the troops might 
well be pretty key here too. Another way: Make 
the leader player sit in a blind corner with his 
map and make the other units radio him info 
and he can try to give sensible orders. Far 
more comms rolls, more opportunities to jam, 
more confusion. Or make him use his binos to 
spot whats going on. Do that for a while and 
he'll be convinced to move forward. Also, 
officers who lead from the spineless rear area 
like that should (over time) suffer motivation 
issues with their soldiers. 
3) I don't like on the move stuff, just because it 
looks more complex to administer. And the CO 
being busy doesn't necessarily mean his squad 
can't act well. I think if you cut the CO to 1 
transfer per round, you gut stargrunt a bit. It is 
part of the mechanic that differentiates it and 
makes it interesting. 


Prev: Re: [FT] New FAC? Was "New IF ships" Next: Re: [FT] New FAC? Was "New IF ships"