RE: SG actions rule clarification

At 12:29 PM 10-06-98 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi Trevor,
>
>This is one of the situations that if you INTERPRET the rules in that
>way; "it doesn't say you can't so you can!", type of answers. 
>
>Jon T. and Mike Elliot have replied to a number like this, and
basically
>it is not in the spirit of the rules and is another example of trying
to
>min/max the rules. 
>
>Breaking off a detachment is another example of using the rules to gain
>advantage.
>
>There was a discussion about using detachments like this and it came
>down to asking why do you break off a detachment in the first place?
The
>answer is to carry out a number of tasks that can't be done by the
whole
>squad all at once. eg Perhaps engaging TWO enemy squads that are firing
>at the squad, or sending the detachment with a support weapon off to
>provide covering fire to enable the main squad to cross some open
>ground.
>
>Hope this hasn't put a damper on your game plan.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Owen 
>
>PS how are the extra Ocenaic Union ships coming?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Trevor Dow [mailto:adspirit@pipeline.com.au]
>Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 1998 9:57
>To: GZG mailing list
>Subject: SG actions rule clarification
>
>
>Here's a SG Question for Jon.
>
>A squad has eight troopers, 6 riflemen with advanced assualt rifles 
>Fire-power 3, and two SAW's Fire-power D8. This Squad can lay out a 
>fair bit of fire power in just one action but can this unit also divide

>their combat between 2 actions ie. 
>1st Action: 3 riflemen and 1 SAW, 
>2nd Action the other 3 riflemen, the other SAW. 
>Or must all of the riflemen who are going to fire, fire in the same 
>action with only the two SAW's being able to fire in the other action 
>because they are support weapons.
>
>Trevor Dow 
>Adventurous Spirit, 
>Torquay, Australia.
>
>
I don`t know about using the rules to gain an advantage, but I do know
that
squads do that type of thing in real life.