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

Hi all,

>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).

That makes sense.  I have to admit that this situation never occurred to
me.  We *never* play vehicles as part of the squad they're carrying - I
always have them as separate units.  Once an AIFV dumps its squad, it is
supposed to be able to *fight* in support of the infantry, or on its own
if
necessary.  Can't do that if the vehicle and the squad have to share
just
two actions...	I can see perhaps abstracting this a bit in a smaller
scale
game (DS for example), but in a Stargrunt scale game, I wouldn't want to
play with vehicles as an integral part of a squad.  I think it would
penalize them a lot.

>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.

Both are interesting ideas, worth trying out.

>
>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.

That's a great idea.

>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.

That too.

>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. 

certainly that would make the ranges of the heavy autocannon weapons
more
"realistic" vs. infantry.  Would this apply to RFACs, HELs and GACs, or
to
all heavy weapons?  And would it apply when shooting at infantry, or at
all
targets?

If against all targets, then a size 3 weapon shooting at a size 4 target
would have 84" range bands, which seems a bit much...

>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

do you mean "leave the impact effects as they are", or "leave all the
effects as they are"?  If we increase the range effectiveness of RFAC/1
but
not HKP, that would lead to oddness...

>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.

yeah.  and/or maybe a morale effect too.  

we play with flame throwers as weapons that can be used in battle OTHER
than just in close assaults.  They are effective in the first range band
only, and being shot by one causes a terror-based morale check
immediately
with a hefty penalty.  I could see something similar (though not quite
as
dramatic) happening with a DFFG shot - they are scary... a lot more
"dramatic" than an HKP shot which a trooper might not even notice unless
it
hits something close by.  You'd notice great big fiery explosions...

>RFACs, GACs, and HELs in anti-infantry mode are broken. 

Yes.  Very much so.

It doesn't make sense that an infantry carried SAW would be more
effective
vs. infantry than a vehicle mounted .50 cal...

>would work. Or we just need to give these weapons new support weapon
stats.

normally I shy away from adding something to the rules as big as a whole
new set of stats for most of the heavy weapons, but in this case, it
makes
sense.

A new project for stargrunt.ca, perhaps...

Tom?  :)

>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?
>

I always give the RFAC at least a d10 impact vs. PA, but when we played
it
with "full effectiveness", we said that a minor hit was a suppression,
and
a major hit was d10x2 impact.  It seemed to work ok.

>>It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship.	Kudos to the
three
>>NAC players.
>
>Sounds like a great game!

Lots of fun.

And nice to be able to play on a table big enough that we could actually
have three platoons per side running about and not get in each others'
way
all the time.

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca