RE: SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

Hi Wayne,

Interesting suggestions, although honestly I think they are more
appropriate for a Skirmish level game.

your second option seems more fluid and less likely to clutter the game.

Mind you I'd be questioning why a lone 'suicidal' trooper is in a
position that he is Close Assaulting anyone anyway? We try to keep a
more reasonable game flow going. ie what we call our 'moral' approach.
Put yourself in the troopies place and ask yourself if you would do the
same thing in that situation. We try to avoid the 'because the rules
don't say I can't then I will' situations. Gaming is after all meant to
be fun. 

On the other hand, I find PA so powerful that a lone PA trooper would
reasonably be able to have at a bunch of softskins!!

So Wayne, interested in coming along to Western Suburbs this weekend?
Paul O'Grady and myself are organising a three table 5 player game. Not
as big as our Demi Battalion game at the Open Day but big.

Cheers,

Owen G

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne [mailto:w.pollerd@student.unimelb.edu.au]
Subject: SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

After having a full 9 man OU squad be defeated in a close assault by the
remains of a power armour squad (1 man), I was surprised to find that
there
was nothing in the Stargrunt II rules that covers a numerically inferior
squad declaring and initiating a close assault on a numerically superior
squad.	

As the rules stand now, a single solider doesn't seem to care if he is
ordered to assault a single man or a full 10 squad and will cheerfully
(ie.
he has a confidence level of CONFIDENT) attempted the assault with a +0
modifier on his REACTION TEST no matter what the odds.	

What follows is two suggestions which cover the circumstances when a
squad
wishes to initiate a close assault against a numerically superior force.

OPTION 1)	Currently after the attacker has passed their REACTION
test to
initiate a close assault, the defender needs to make a CONFIDENCE test
to
see if they will stand and receive the charge with the following
modifiers.
Which are based on the ratio of attackers to defenders.
		 attacker's odds.	defender's threat level
		 1:1 (less than 2:1)		+1
		 2:1				+2
		 3:1				+3
		 etc.				etc.
		(all fractional odds are rounded down)

What I suggest is that when the attackers have less than a 1:1 advantage
in
numbers, that is the defenders outnumber the attackers (or the
equivalent
when dealing with power armour), the threat level for the defenders
REACTION test should be +0.  This changes the above table to the
following. 
		 attacker's odds.	defender's threat level
		 less than 1:1			   +0
			1:1			   +1
			2:1			   +2
			3:1			   +3
			etc.			   etc.
			(all fractional odds are rounded down)

This means that a single suicidal trooper attacking your fully manned
squad
would not result in them taking a CONFIDENCE test with a +1 modifier and
still leaves the possibility that the sight of this single approaching
enemy will convince your troops that he must have support near by or he
wouldn't be attacking them and result in your squad withdrawing.  

OPTION 2)	This suggestion is more involved than the option 1 but
is the one
that I prefer.	When the attacker announces his intention to initiate a
close assault and proceeds to attempt his REACTION roll at a THREAT
level
based on the assaulting squads CONFIDENCE level, the following
additional
modifier should be added to the THREAT level.  This additional modifier
takes into account if the attacker is at a numerical disadvantage or
not.
		
	attacker outnumbers defender				+0
	defender outnumbers attacker by less than 2:1		+1
	defender outnumbers attacker by 2:1			+2
	defender outnumbers attacker by 3:1			+3
			etc.					etc.
			(all fractional odds are rounded down)

This would mean that the lone power armour trooper (with a CONFIDENCE
level
of CONFIDENT) that attacked my OU squad of 9 men would have had to pass
a
REACTION test at +4 (1 PA equals 2 men v's 9 men. which is a little over
4
to 1 odds so is rounded down to 4 to 1).

As I have already said, I think the second option is the better of the
two
but since minor changes in the rules are more likely to be accepted by
the
majority of players I would suggest that the first option might turn out
to
be more usable.

Wayne.