Re: going to try SGII (long)

> Date: 	 Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:46:04 -0500
> From: 	 Andy Skinner <askinner@avs.com>
> Reply-to:	 FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Organization:  Advanced Visual Systems
> To:		 FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	 Re: going to try SGII (long)

> KR, thanks for your responses.  I do think you're interpreting what I
> say in a certain way because of preconceived notions, whether they're
> based on the fact I'm using GW figures, or some other reason.  The
> questions I'm asking are based on trying to figure out the rules, and
> I've had responses on the list of people saying things sound possible,
> as well as people mentioning that the rules aren't specific about
> things, or "imply" things.  It's hard to figure out rule by
implication.
> 
> Geo-Hex wrote:
> > > The "robots" I'll call a support Heavy PA guy, since that's how I
used
> > > them.  They're GW robot figs, but I don't usually care that much
about
> > > what they're intended to be.  So I used them as the support guys
for the
> > > heavy PA squad on my side, and 3 of them made up her H PA squad.
> > >
> > > We did take the rule that one of those guys could shoot one weapon
in
> > > one action, and the other in another action.  For instance, mine
added
> > > his small arms fire into the squads during one action, then fired
the
> > > support weapon during the second action.	I'd still like to know
whether
> > > this is against the letter of the rules, since the rule says you
can't
> > > fire a "weapon" twice in an activation.  Is it against the spirit?
> > 
> > Yes, this is still a "squad" game and you are still asking if an
> > INDIVIDUAL can fire!!
> 
> The rules already cover stuff about individuals firing.  He can add
> support to the squad's fire, or he can fire it independently, if given
> an action to do it.  Just because we've mentioned the support guy,
> doesn't mean we're trying to make it an individual game.  I agree
there
> are arguments to be made about whether this can be done, but I don't
> think it is because I'm trying to individualize it.
> 
> I'm eliminating one of the possible ways to handle this, because I
agree
> that he cannot add firepower to the squad while shooting at a
different
> target.  So can he add both firepower and support to firing at one
> target?

No.  According to the rules an individual can only fire once per 
activation, not once per "action", therefore you have to choose where 
you'll utilize him. 

  He's a guy in a big metal suit, and for all I know he just has
> to point at them and push a button.  I don't think it is so out of the
> question, but I may end up making him choose one or the other.  I
wonder
> again, though, that if the game is intended to be generic, and there
are
> no points to min/max, and you make efforts to make sure it balances
> either way, why does it matter?  I could add another guy to my squad
and
> get the same firepower, and another guy to kill.  So I may end up
> choosing whether he adds support or regular firepower per activation,
> but I don't think it breaks the game to have it work the other way.
> 
> 
> > But he can't he uses one weapon or the other for the activation -
> > really you are creating the unit of Rambo's!!!
> Looking at some of the powered armor pictures in SGII, they look like
> little battlemechs.  Having that guy push buttons inside his powered
> armor doesn't seem as improbable as having a big-muscled guy juggle
> weighty guns around.

That may be, but we've abstracted that to allow for increased 
playability.

> 
> > > 1) I'm not sure about just what the word "weapon" means in the
rule that
> > > no weapon may be fired twice.  Does it mean a particular piece of
metal,
> > > in a particular guy's hands?  Or does it mean a kind of weapon?
> > 
> > That particular fire "element"
> Is "element" defined somewhere?  In a squad of leader, 3 troopers, and
1
> support guy, are there 3 elements: leader, firepower, support weapon?
> 
> >   For
> > > example (and sorry if I missed it in the rules--some things in
their are
> > > spread out over several pages and I don't see them), can I split
my
> > > small arms fire into two actions?  

No.  And once again this probably more of a playability issue.	With 
our rules we want you to get through an entire game each time you 
play.

With the first meaning of weapon, I
> > > can put 2 guys' weapons against one squad in one action, and 3
guys'
> > > weapons against another squad in another action.	With the meaning
that
> > > "weapon" in this case means their regular rifles as a kind of
weapon,
> > > then they can only shoot that kind of weapon in one action during
their
> > > activation.  Which is it?

Look up the rules on detachments if you want to lay down this type of 
fire.  The rules allow you to do it, just not in the way you've 
mentioned.  You have to remember that the two "actions" you've 
mentioned are "gaming abstractions".  In real life I doubt a squad 
leader can know that the fire of half his men has pinned the enemy 
and now he will get a morale loss by firing the other half!!

> > 
> > No, don't do that.	When we play SGII at the club we let the players
> > choose to split fire during activation, but squad fire (i.e. assualt
> > rifle fire is ALL done in one action at a given target.  Then in the
> > second action the SAW can fire at a different target on his own.
> 
> Again, I'm just trying to understand the rules.  It said no weapon may
> fire more than once per activation, and I haven't found a good
> definition of what is meant.	This could have meant "the squad has 4
> small arms weapons.  No weapon may fire twice, so two fire in one
> action, two in another."  Isn't it a legitimate question to ask what
> exactly "weapon" means?  I'm still looking at the squad, not the
> individuals, trying to figure out what resources a squad has.  If a
guy
> gets shot, it changes the squad's firepower, so you can't say I'm
trying
> to make it an individual game for mentioning that there are N weapons
in
> the squad.
> 
> > Quit min/maxing and munching or you're doomed to
> > fire power games forever!!
> 
> I'm not asking the question because I want to kill off all my
opponents
> before they get to shoot me, or try to win every time.  I'm trying to
> figure out the rules.  The same rules will be used by both sides in my
> games, and we'll probably be using different armies and switching off.

> I was joking about the min/maxing and munchkin stuff.  I really think
> you're misinterpreting what I say because I play a GW game (Epic 40K)
> and have GW figs.

No, my objections to what you were saying are not influenced by my 
dislike of GW, they are just another company getting it wrong, not 
the only one.  

> 
> > placed.  If they end movement out in the open in sight of the enemy,
> > "c'est la guerre!!"
> I had a bunch of these.  :-)	As I said one 1 and two 2s.  And my
Elite
> guys failed a couple of communication rolls, too.  Whoops! :-)
> 
> > > 4) If you get more potential hits than there are figures in the
target
> > > squad, do the potential hits get applied more than once to those
> > > figures?
> > 
> > Yes, and you most roll location for each hit (everyone could have
> > aimed at the same figure!)	If the same figure is hit multiple
times,
> > make multiple impact rolls vs. his armor
> I've had several people say what they do, and describe it as a house
> rule. I'll have to take a look at the rules and see if it is clear
about
> what's "official", at least as official as GZG games get.  :-)  Enough
> people do this, whether they're sure it is official or not, that I'll
> probably adopt it, too.
> 
> Thanks.  Really KR, I appreciate you responding.  I just get the
> impression you're reading my questions through a filter.  Of course,
you
> think I'm reading the rules through a GW filter.  Remember, I don't
play
> 40K, and fire in Epic 40K is by detachment.  I'm used to thinking in
> terms of fire by groups.

Good luck, and try to keep your playtest games very bland.  Use 
identical sides for a game and try to win by outwitting your 
opponent.  A lot of the fantasy and sci-fi rulesets on the market 
today hide their inadequacies under the guise of the "differences" 
between the two sides in the game.  Jon has playtested these rules 
with identical forces to try to achieve balance.  Try it, you'll 
see!!

KR

> 
> andy
> 
> -- 
> Andy Skinner
> askinner@avs.com
> 
>