Prev: Re: New IF ships Next: Suggested figure posings (for Jon Tuffley)

Armour crew bail out

From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@f...>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 15:56:19 -0400
Subject: Armour crew bail out

My comments marked with [Tomb]

Allan replied:
>1) If armour crew (as opposed to infantry) 
>out, they automatically lose 1 quality level 
>can do infantry stuff, just badly - imagine 
>infantry trying to operate a 100mm Gauss 

Hmmm... I usually don't even worry about 
the crew. I just let them "disappear". The 
only time I have them on the table is if
they count towards casualty counts for 
victory purposes.

[Tomb] We tend not to. I've seen jeep and 
VTOL crews hold up a whole infantry 
platoon. Rather silly. But the player's thought 
was "This is a desparate situation, they 
know it, and they're still able to fight". I just 
think they should fight less well than 
dedicated infantry. 

>3) Crew or troops bailing out also get to 
drop >a morale level from having their 
vehicle shot out  >from under them. 

They have to roll morale for taking casualties.

[Tomb] True, but if you take no casualties, I 
still think it is jarring to lose your ride. 

 I could understand you wanting to give them 
a Confidence Test if they are in a vehicle 
that blows up, but I don't like the idea of an 
automatic Confidence Level drop.

[Tomb] Okay, I can buy that. 

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

Must be a local thing. *L* I have had squads 
gutted with a vehicle hit. On a major impact 
they are already rolling twice the weapon 
class against their armour. Put your guys in 
D6 armour, or run a WW2 game with
D4 armour and see what happens... *L*

[Tomb] Most kills in my games are a result of 
IAVR or GMS/P fire. Thus a class 1 
weapon. But even these, if the weapon is 
destroyed, probably should cause ammo 
cook-offs, secondary explosions, and fire. 
So rolling higher than a 1 on the quality die 
(usually d8) isn't too hard. Where does body 
armour enter the picture? Or have I 
misinterpreted the rules? <don't have my 
book handy and my recall may be flawed>

>3) I don't like on the move stuff, just 
because it looks more complex to 

You'd have no problem. I know this, 
because I've read your Overwatch rules,
Tom. ;-)

[Tomb] The old version. Thrown out in favour 
of a much streamlined and much simpler 
version, which achieves about the same 
effect with far more simplicity of explanation.

> 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 
>makes it interesting. 

I'm going to try the 1 Transfer Action thing a 
bit more. I'm not sure how it will work. I've 
been thinking more about this. I do like the
two transfers, but I don't like that leaders end 
up in the corner of the board.

[Tomb] Concur.

I playtested a little more last night, and I 
think giving leaders 1 free transfer and only
allowing one more is going to be too 

[Tomb] Depends. If you limit "comms" 
actions to two per activation, then he won't 
be calling arty or air. So you'll pretty much 
be limited to reorg, move or shoot. And one 
more guy in a squad fire isn't a huge big 

I suspect that it's going to be unreconcilable. 
We keep 2 transfers and live with leaders 
hiding out on the table. The proposals just
aren't nasty enough to "waste" an action 
moving when the command unit could be

[Tomb] I think your comms rules go part 
way. The other thing is play a few heavy 
EW games. When officers start _having_ to 
be up with their troops to have any 
reasonable chance of a command transfer, 
that will change the game. 

Giving them one transfer for free is okay if 
they keep moving, but it makes them too 
powerful when the command unit sits still
(essentially giving them 3 actions). You 
mention that you think the game will lose 
some of its feel if 1 transfer is taken away, 
and you are probably right. Allowing
moving while doing a transfer has been 
roundly panned. 

[Tomb] Not all ideas meet with general 
approval. (I know!). But it was a good cut at 
the problem even if it isn't generally liked. :)

I think we're stuck.

[Tomb] For now. Maybe an idea will strike us 
soon. :)

Prev: Re: New IF ships Next: Suggested figure posings (for Jon Tuffley)