RE: SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

At 03:41 PM 6/08/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi Wayne,
>
>Interesting suggestions, although honestly I think they are more
>appropriate for a Skirmish level game.

I thought Stargrunt was a skirmish level game.	Or do you mean skirmish
where each model is moved independently.

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

That's the one I prefered.  Ijust thought it might be harder to get
people
to agree to play with it. Outside of your normal opponents, who should
be
oppent to trying rule suggestions and house rules anyway.

>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. 

True

>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!!

When I said lone trooper I was really thinking of a PA trooper.  My
normal
opponent likes to use PA troops but I prefer to use normal troopers and
I
find that I need to kill his PA squad to the last man before my squads
are
safe from a close assault.  With them normally being Vets or Elites they
lose very few confidence levels and with up to three activations a turn
(he
likes to transfer actions to them) having only three suppression markers
on
them isn't enough to stop them preforming a close assault.

I suppose you could say I thought up the change as a result of always
being
assaulted by a numerically smaller squad, even if they are PA troopies.
Maybe I should suggest that my opponent supplies less drugs to his PA
troopies before the game so they won't be so agressive :)

Wayne.