Re: The GZG Digest V2 #2190 (Prioritizing targets in SG2 and Initiative card draw)

On 4 Oct 2004 at 23:00, The GZG Digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: Prioritizing targets in SG2
> 
> I think you are getting into an area of "how you
> play".  Book reads biggest threat so in that case a PA
> squad is more of a threat even if they are further
> away.  This choice could lead to an argument but it
> would be "how the troops on the table would react". 
> As long as you can agree on those terms then I think
> there is not a problem.

I've never been all that crazy about SG2's priority rules. I understand 
their use, as they help deflect the problems of the "God's eye view".
NSL 
squad on a hill. Two Phalon squads in bushes. Firs Phalon squad fires, 
suppresses NSL squad. NSL squad removes suppression. Which Phalon does 
the NSL squad fire at? Realistically, probably the one that fired 
already. By the rules, definitely the one that fired. By player choice, 
definitely the one that _didn't_ fire, as it still has 2 actions left
and 
the other has no actions left. The rule prevents the player from doing 
something potentially unrealistic because the player knows one squad has

done all it can for that turn (Transfer Actions not withstanding) and
the 
other squad has yet to activate.

There are three reasons I am not crazy about the rule.

1) Everything in an SG2 turn is thought to happen simultaneously, or
near 
simultaneously, not sequentially. If the first Phalon squad fires, and 
later in the turn the second Phalon squad moves, it could mean one fired

and the other moved in sequence, or it could represent one moving and
one 
firing simultaneously. If it's simultaneous, why couldn't the squad that

is moving (and thus, in that moment, is potentially the more dangerous 
squad) be fired at? Is it more realistic to fire at the squad in cover 
while ignoring the squad moving in the open?

As the SG2 rules are written, the NSL squad can't do anything against
the 
first Phalon squad if the NSL activate second. The first Phalon squad 
gets its actions without worry of being interfered with. If that's the 
case, why not allow the NSL squad to fire on the second squad as a 
counter to that problem?

2) The rules are kind of clunky. The game runs quite smoothly until you 
run into arguments over target priority, one of the few areas in the
game 
where you will get vehement arguments.

3) I use Overwatch rules. Overwatch rules can be problematic if you 
insist on strict adherence to the priority rules. "I fire my NSL sniper,

who has been on overwatch, at the moving unit." "Oh, no, you can't. You 
have to fire at the unit that fired!" "Then what's the point in using 
overwatch?"

I found that ignoring the priority rules really didn't adversely affect 
the game. I started ignoring the rules when I was teaching the game to 
new players. I found that through running convention games that the 
priority rules had a very minor affect on the way the game turned out. 
Eventually I considered them "optional" rules, and I haven't looked
back.

The priority rules can take away from the tactics of the game. Sure, 
choosing the second, inactivated squad is "gamey" compared to firing at 
the more obvious target (the one that fired). Choosing between the two, 
though, adds a tactical choice for the player. "Do I fire on the squad 
that hasn't done anything, or the squad that already fired?" D'uh, no
big 
choice there. But, how about, "Do I fire at the militia squad that
hasn't 
activated yet, or do I fire at the PA squad that _has_ fired?" That's a 
more difficult choice, particularly if a Transfer Action has already
been 
completed.

I will concede a point here: the target priority rules can add some 
tactical complexity of its own. If the NSL were up against a militia 
squad and a Veteran squad, the player has to consider the priority rules

when he decides which squad to activate first. Does he activate the 
militia first, making them primary target, or does he activate the 
Veteran squad, which has a better chance of suppressing the target?
This, 
however, strikes me of being just as "gamey" as giving the players the 
choice of target. You can force a target on the other player by the
order 
you activate your units. 

In my experience, the priority rules can produce effects just as cheesy 
as those the priority rules hoped to eliminate. I would suggest that the

original poster try playing a game or two without using the priority 
rules and see how it works out. He may find there are fewer arguments 
while increasing the pace of the game.
 
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:45:25 -0400
> From: "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Subject: RE: [FMAS][long] AAR: Initiative card draw
> 
> I think I'd do it differently: "you can hold an action until your next
> action comes up, at which point you lose the first one."

I agree with Chris/Laserlight (who explained to Doug the difference 
between his rule and the original). It's actually easier to play the
game 
Chris' way, while increasing tension. 

---

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

"Keeping an open mind is a virtue -- but not so open that your
brains fall out." - James Oberg