Numerous bits

Beast:
Conversion of RotHafen to stargrunt.ca format involves ripping apart 
Los formatting, and repackaging inside out standard templates which 
include breaking the thing up for page length, getting links right, 
and making sure all the stuff to include the SSI is present. Not a 
trivial piece of work and I have no idea how to distribute the task 
effectually. Thanks for the offer though. 

My long term goal for stargrunt.ca submissions is to provide template 
so people can submit articles preformatted. 

Women in Combat: 

Reason 01 why we have fewer women in combat arms in Canada: Interest. 
Most women don't seem to want to shoot things and blow stuff up.

Reason 02: Physical Demands. When I was in training, there were two 
female infanteers in my training course. 1 washed out and the other 
finished near the bottom of the class. Infantry physical demands are 
significant, not even counting the "health in the field" issues. 
Carrying around a wounded 180 pound man, route marching with 60 
pounds of kit on, etc. are all very demanding. Not all guys can 
muster the stuff to manage, but fewer women have the physical stature 
(frame, muscle, etc). to manage. These requirements are the barrier 
and IMNSHO justly so. I couldn't pass the reqs in my current pear-
shaped programmer body, and if someone let me coast by, I'd be 
endangering my squadmates by my inability. 

Reason 03: Treatment. There are a fair number of male chauvinists 
left in the world, maybe more in the military. Women get a very rough 
road from some of these dorks. Someones there is some justice 
(someone pulling down a whole platoon do to physical inability is 
gonna take a lot of hazing regardless of sex, but women tend to take 
it a bit worse than men do to the perception there inadequacy is 
gender oriented and due to their perhaps not growing up with this 
kind of harrasment). 

I don't have a problem with a woman combatant if she can pull her 
weight (and mine if I'm bleeding) and if she can handle the job. Many 
women shoot better than men.....

Allan's Combat Move:

A combat move shifts the range die down 1. This gives players a 

I think you meant UP1. You want a bigger die Allan, not smaller. I've 
used this on and off for a long time, but it usually makes you harder 
to hit by having a larger die (shift UP 1). 

Smoke:

1. Smoke in SG2 is directly placed up to 60m away. This suggests a 
smoke launcher or a smoke grenade from the rifle. It forms instantly 
(in game granularity) and goes away about as fast (no real time to 
form a "screen" in the classic sense or be affected by wind).

2. You should be able to pop smoke it while suppressed. A number of 
people who have spoken against this have done so from a rules 
perspective, a number who have spoken in favour have done so from an 
experience/personal training perspective. I'd go with the latter :) 

3. Unlimited smoke is annoying in games. Limited smoke deployments 
are probably wise.

4. The smoke in the GZGverse is obviously full spectrum blocking 
(blocks LoS hence LoF) and very thick and fast to form (and short 
lived). There are no stipulations made about wind or weather etc. so 
the smoke cannister must produce a profligate amount of obscurant.

5. Smoke launching should be considered a firing action. Allan, if 
you haven't seen this abused, you need to get out and game more... it 
is very easy to have two activations, FIRE then POP SMOKE. This 
protect you (magical wall) from counterfire. Then it goes away at end 
of turn. Then you repeat. As long as you activate first, your fire is 
unblocked and counter fire is impossible. I make popping smoke a 
firing action because it will involve dischargers or rifle GLs (no 
60m grenade throws most days, esp if prone or suppressed) and 
therefore is "a firing action". Also, it serves to prevent this 
annoying use of smoke which is super cheesy. 

Tomb.