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

Allan,

Good post.  I agree with you regarding the priority
rules.	They can have some positive effects against
gamey results but with good players (ie interested in
fun and fair) and a well crafted scenario you will
have enough things to fire at that forced priority
will not be an issue.

Making it an optional rule is a great idea.  That way
if you find that one of your opponents always uses the
most gamey choice you can introduce it back into the
rule set and see what they think.

Bob Makowsky

--- Allan Goodall <agoodall@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 
> 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 
> 
>