[GZG] New game mechanics (was: Re: Name for Rules)

[Mark Kinsey <Kinseym@xxxxxxx>]

Totally agree. Now let's talk about basing and game mechanics.

First basing. I'm cool with any base size between 1" by 1" and the FOW 
base sizes. Some people like Stuart Murray use old GZG figs and Peter 
Pig which are "true 15's and they fit just fine on a 25mm x 25mm base, 
IMHO the current GZG minis fit better on a 30 x 30mm base (for a 3 to 4 
man team) By way of information, the
FOW small bases are 32mm x 25mm and their medium bases are 50mm x 32mm. 
I think it's a matter of personal taste and the rules should be flexible 
on this point.

The way I see it, the 15mm GZG minis are 8 man squads so a typical squad 
could be two 4 man fireteams or two three's and a two. Usually (always?) 
there's two support weapons in an 8 man 15mm squad so I'm not sure if 
you'd place a support weapon in each 4 man fireteam, or two in one. I 
might be inclined if one of the support weapons was AT to do the two 
three's and a two arrangement. Obviously this would be totally optional, 
as some like to mix and match between 8 man packs and even between 
manufacturers. But it would be nice to provide some TO&E and basing 
guidance based on what's available from GZG. I think it would decrease 
the frustration level when basing (*nobody* likes to mess basing up and 
have to redo it, yuck!).


Now when the platoon fires, I'm assuming that we'd total dice per 
fireteam. e.g. if I had 4 figs on base and they each had a FP of 3 I'd 
throw my D12. Support weapon stands would throw their die for the 
support weapon on the stand. A player could choose which stands are 
firing and which are moving/close assaulting. That way you could have 
2/3's of your stands lay down suppressing fire (hopefully) and the other 
1/3 do the close assault. If you don't get the suppression, bad things 
happen to the close assault stands (return fire). So even if I had 9 
fireteams in my platoon and they were all firing, I'd be throwing 9 dice 
(plus the quality die). That doesn't sound too cumbersome.

Any additional ideas on this?

Most of this is borrowed from Stuart Murray's company rules (as I 
understand them). Stuart's been running a system like this for some time 
now. I posted Stuarts rules to the list back in the early Spring. Jon, 
if you want Stuart's email, I could send it off list.

Oh, is this where I beg and plead to be in the playtest group?

-Mark Kinsey

Allan Goodall wrote:
> On 11/3/06, laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx <laserlight@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > SG, not S, so SG:AC should be fine. We just have to hope that people 
> > spell out "Assault
> > Co" instead of shortening it by four letters.
>
> You can't pronounce the SG:AC acroynym easily. "Ess Gee Ay See"...
> "Ess Gee, Ack". You can't with SG2 either, but Stargrunt is only two
> syllables, so it's easy enough just to say the word (it's all about
> syllable count).
>
> I don't mind "S:AC" or "SAC" as it can be pronounced "Sack" (just like
> Strategic Air Command). And it's "sack", not as in "a sack of..." but
> in "I will sack your city!"
>
> I can handle G-Cav or G-Cav 2 (Gee Cav), but I'm not too crazy about
> "Grav Cav", for reasons Indy mentioned.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l