Re: SG actions rule clarification

Glover, Owen 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?

Thanks Owen for your reply
It wasn't so much as me wanting to do it to maximise or cheat in the 
game, its more like its being done and I don't think this is right. The 
culprets (myself included until I started reading the rules again) 
aren't actually detaching elements but are just dividing their firepower

through two actions to get more dice to roll at the target in an 
activation. The dice are actually lower D types but there are more of 
them during an activation and tend to create more suppressions if not 
casualties.  I don't think its right and is just twisting the rules 
because its not so clear cut.

The Oceanic Union Ships are coming along nicely thanks, although I think

Nic wants them to become UN as he dosen't think Oceanic Union would have

Dreadnaughts and Carriers, I guess that descision will be made at GZG if

they like them.

Regards to all
Trevor Dow
Adventurous Spirit,
Torquay, Australia.  
> 
>