Prev: RE: [FMAS] Is this insane or what? Re: real-life FT playing (was: Re: Fighter Group Turn around time was: YAFS Next: [semi OT, FH] Mine detecting plants

Re: [SG2] Alternate Quick Combat Resolution (Modified Impact Versus Armour Procedure)

From: agoodall@a...
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:44:51 +0000
Subject: Re: [SG2] Alternate Quick Combat Resolution (Modified Impact Versus Armour Procedure)

Nick wrote:

> I'm really surprised at your groups response to power armor being more

> powerful.  My group won't play SG2 if there is any PA on the board. 
They 
> are "so powerful you might as well not play."  

If you have your one and only PA squad shot to pieces in one turn, with
two 
troopers dead and one injured, you don't find them overly powerful. 

I have a scenario where one side has PA and the other side doesn't.
Funny 
enough, it makes for a fairly balanced scenario. Part of the issue is
that 
sticking close to the rules you have to pretty much make them Veteran or

Elite. I have gone as far as to make them Green in scenarios of my own 
making, suggesting that the armour is sufficiently higher technology but
not 
very difficult to use. This isn't Tuffleyverse canon, though.

Just remember that with my rules suggestion it's only light pistols and 
archaic firearms that can't touch PA. Although it's less likely to kill
a PA 
trooper, it's slightly more likely than normal to _wound_ a PA trooper.
If 
you've played SG2 at all, you'll know that a wounded trooper is more of
a 
pain for the defender than a dead trooper (you can leave a dead trooper 
behind, but you don't want to leave your wounded behind when you pull
out). 
So, while PA itself may protect the wearer better, on average these
rules 
make PA squads ever so slightly less effective.

--
Allan Goodall		   agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com

Prev: RE: [FMAS] Is this insane or what? Re: real-life FT playing (was: Re: Fighter Group Turn around time was: YAFS Next: [semi OT, FH] Mine detecting plants