Re: going to try SGII (long)

> Date: 	 Mon, 09 Mar 1998 08:18:51 -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)

> First, let me apologize if I got over-defensive last week.  I bought
the
> game because of the squad level, so wasn't surprised that that's what
it
> was about.  But I didn't need to feel like you were gunning for me.

Ah well, sometimes I get heavy handed - I don't mean to be, it just 
comes out that way!!
 
> Second, customer service kudos to GeoHex.  KR sent me a replacement
for
> my book, which had some smeared pages.  I'll use my smeared copy as a
> loaner, to get people interested.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> OK, let me make this a suggestion, then, and leave it at that.  When I
> read the rules, I saw that a squad might have (for example) 4 rifles
and
> 1 support weapon.  Then I read that no "weapon" may be fired more than
> once per activation.	Both the dividing fire question (and I did
assume
> that if it was allowed it would take another action, so it wasn't
> something for nothing) and the power-armored guy firing both weapons
> were me trying to figure out how a squad could use its resources, not
> firing a weapon more than once per activation.  I'd suggest a
> clarification to what "weapon" means.  I think my problem, rather than
> trying to use the guys as individuals, was that I was abstracting the
> squad stuff too much.  :-)

Hmm, yeah, could be. . . . 
> 
> I'm tending to agree with you now about the support weapon/small arms
> guy, even though I think the powered armor guy does begin to be
> believable.

I'll give you that one, especially if you want to run a support guy 
as an individual figure.
> 
> [about splitting fire]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'd also agree about playability.  We ourselves didn't like that we
got
> into cover and then just sat and shot.
> 
> > 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!!
> 
> Not sure what you meant here.  I certainly wasn't suggesting splitting
> fire so I could roll the quality die twice against the same target!

Ah, well that's something that someone in one of my demo games wanted 
to do.	He had lost his specialists due to fire and wanted to fire 
twice in a turn.  After he spent the action to form the detachment I 
let him do it.

  I
> haven't read through the detached elements stuff much yet, so I'll
take
> a look.  I guess it makes sense to me that, if they are going to shoot
> at something different, they'd have to take some time first to tell
> everybody who they're supposed to be shooting with and at.
> 
> Even though we didn't finish the first game, we (my wife, too) enjoyed
> it, and could see some of what we want to be different.
> 
> I expect our games will:
> 
> *continue to use sides that differ somewhat, though some will be more
> similar than others.	The two most similar will probably be the old
> Imperial Guard figures vs the new ones.
> 
> * not use any special characters

Try a sniper sometime, deadly, especially if handled properly.
> 
> * not emphasize close assault (though I'm torn here, because I will
want
> to use it for my tyranids, and I do realize that it represents
something
> realistic in getting an enemy that's in cover)

I ran a game of Starship Troopers and the bugs (naturally) could ONLY 
close assault - bloody, just like the movie!!  But its true that if 
you try to emphasize close assault you could get some weird results.  
A scenario that involves the use and fire and perhaps a close assault 
to take the position is likely to be more interesting (and 
challenging) to play.
> 
> I _might_ reduce the Space Marines to full light armor, not powered. 
> But I like the tacticals as light and the termies as heavy, so I'm not
> sure.

I like that you had the heavies as slow power armor.  It makes for a 
more interesting force composition. 

> 
> And when I get pictures of our battle, I'll put them on my web page.
> 
Great!	I'll look forward to seeing them.

KR