Re: [SG] More questions from the weekend - Stargrunt rules questions.

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 04:00:08 -0400, Adrian Johnson
<adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> There
>is NO situation in the rules that would allow the vehicle in question
to
>move while a separate unit was activated and getting on board.

That is my argument. I'm in agreement with you, as per my previous post.

>Irrespective of what DS2 does or does not say, that isn't really
relevant
>to what the Stargrunt rules say, and I can't find any reference to a
>vehicle having to spend an action for troops to embark.  Am I missing a
>reference in the Stargrunt rules here?

Nope, you're not. It's just vague. And while I can see TomB's point in
bringing up DS2 rules for, say, a house rule interpretation of loading
and
unloading, it's not relevant to a question involving SG2 rules. 

> So, the whole 5 minutes isn't taken up
>with moving - there is more time in there to do other stuff (like sit
and
>listen) and that extra time could be when troops embark, disembark,
etc.

I agree with you. However, the area I have a problem with is one of
vehicles
part of the squad and vehicles that are independent. If a vehicle is
part of a
squad and just sitting somewhere parked, it would only have one action
left
after the squad embarks (and this is assuming the squad was already
within 6"
of the vehicle once it activated). If the vehicle is independent, a
squad
could move up to the vehicle with one action, embark with another, and
the
vehicle would _still_ have two actions. This penalizes vehicles that are
part
of a squad, even though -- technically -- they should be less penalized
as
they are part of the squad. Training, communication, etc. should result
in
closer integration with a vehicle that's part of a squad.

How does _that_ inconsistancy get fixed? One way is to make all vehicles
independent, and the problem essentially goes away. Another is to assume
all
vehicles are part of a squad unless it's something special like VTOL
transports, or something. 

I see Tom's point, but I don't think the rules have an easy fix for it.

>This situation came up several times, and we all agreed it didn't make
any
>sense, except as an artificial limitation on the rules to prevent
vehicles
>from dominating the game.

Part of the problem is the short vehicle range bands. Another is the D12
range
band die being the top end. I suggested making the range band die shift
open,
in my previous e-mail. Another thing that would be interesting to test
is
using 24" range bands for vehicles.

>Now, we understand that they are talking about the maximum *effective*
>range, not the maximum possible range, but still.  Somehow, it doesn't
make
>sense that a whacking great big gun on a tank could shoot effectively
>roughly the same distances as a squad of troops with their rifles...

Well, if you're talking about a modern style tank gun firing HE
ammunition,
then I'd go to the "On Table Artillery Fire" rules on page 47, giving
that
tank essentially unlimited range on the table to hit the infantry. The
rules
for vehicles firing at dispersed targets is usually meant for trying to
hit
infantry with armour piercing projectiles. Of course, how would you then
describe a DFFG shot? If it's a big ball of fire, then I could see
coming up
with artillery type stats for it and using the On Table fire rules to
handle
it.

I don't think it's a big deal for tank guns if you use the On Table
Artillery
rules; let the tank switch to HE fire against infantry. It is an issue
with
RFAC/1s which should fire like a big machine gun. It is an issue with
some of
the other sci-fi ammunition.

This is a good place for a house rule.

>Now, SHOULD heavy weapons be more effective?  Do we want them to be?  I
>maintain that they should be somewhat more effective, but I don't want
the
>game to suddenly be dominated by vehicles if they are used.

Jon describes this effect as the heavy weapon spraying shrapnel from a
nearby
ground burst, etc., like what might happen if an APFSDS shot impacted
the
ground nearby troops. I would argue that if you want vehicles to be more
effective against infantry, let them treat anti-infantry projectiles out
of a
tank gun as on table artillery. The rules for making them more effective
are
already there. 

>I tend to give RFAC a boost re impact when it comes to hitting
infantry,
>and let them use their d10 impact.  But even then, it is less than the
>Gauss SAW which does d12 impact, and is certainly less than a HAMR
which
>does d12x2 vs. all targets.

All heavy weapons are hampered in range. The biggest issue is the 12" x
size
class of the target for the range band size. The size of the gun has
nothing
to do with it (other than to give more impact). How about a range band
equal
to: 12" x (weapon class size + target size)? That would give RFAC/1s 24"
range
bands and RFAC/2s 36" range bands against infantry. 

RFAC/1 and RFAC/2, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode need to be
modified
somewhat. They need support weapon stats (instead of the D8 impact
versus
dispersed targets) as well as more realistic range band sizes. Leave
HVCs,
HKPs, and MDCs as they are, though HVCs can be treated as on table
artillery
when firing HE-style projectiles at infantry. DFFGs should probably have
a
burst radius for an anti-infantry mode using the on table artillery
rules.

>However, RFAC vs. Power Armour troops?  They are treated according to
the
>rules as dispersed infantry just like guys in their regular fatigues. 
I've
>tried running games where RFAC hits on PA get their full effectiveness
(d10
>x 2) vs. PA, and it seems to work ok.	Certainly makes things hot for
the
>PA...

RFACs, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode are broken. They are
essentially a
hybrid weapon (can take on some armour, if needed, but are very good
against
infantry). This needs to be addressed. Perhaps my range band idea,
above,
would work. Or we just need to give these weapons new support weapon
stats.
How did you do major/minor impact against PA when PA should be treated
as
infantry. Wouldn't a "minor" hit just be a suppression and a "major" hit
just
be D10 impact? Or did you make a "minor" suppression only and a "major"
D10 x
2 impact versus PA?

>It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship.  Kudos to the
three
>NAC players.

Sounds like a great game!

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: