Prev: RE: [FT] Railguns - Take 4 Next: Re: FT Pilots & Officers

Re: [SG] - Turn Sequence Idea

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:30:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [SG] - Turn Sequence Idea

>Owen Glover spake thusly upon matters weighty:
>> Has anyone heard of this style of turn sequencing before or played
it? how
>> much do people think it would effect teh flavour of the game?
>Well, I've seen advances directly into the face of an enemy unit
>because the player knew that the enemy unit could not fire, or dashes
>across wide open areas where no one had a chance to interrupt. So I
>can see where one might want to do this. But I can see some issues
>here too:
>1. Battle plan: It's kind of hard to execute one when the units you
>want to move first move last and vice versa. If I want 1 squad to
>(for example) run up and blow the door off a bunker and the second
>squad to close assault the occupants.... this is thorny if the
>assaulters activate first.
>2. Do you think the command elements should be activated this way? It
>sure seems that goes against the spirit of the game. The game is
>about choices, and command control. This flavour would be about
>random chance and the ebb and flow of battle.	Maybe leaving the
>command elements able to activate at any point in place of a card
>draw would be useful.
>Plus, do you use two separate decks and alternate between them (one
>for each player) or do you allow for that awful random chance where
>one player gets (for example) five or six activations in a row before
>the enemy can react? Yikes!
>This might be a viable option, but it would certainly want to be
>tested out a few times. I think it offers a potential imbalance and
>it seems to take away from your ability to react and plan. Maybe that
>is fair, maybe not.

The free choice of when to activate is central to the SG/DS/FMA
and turning it into a chance-based system will change the game A LOT. By
all means try it if you wish, but it isn't something we'll be putting in
any "Official" rules....!
Agreed, there can be quirks in the turn sequence when one player is
to exploit the rules as (Owen? I think you started this thread?)
One rule idea that I've been working on for FMA (which will retrofit to
or DS) is to actually have two different kinds of "opportunity fire" -
split into Overwatch fire and Reaction fire; this is how they are
defined in the FMA test draft material - note that here they relate to
single-figure actions, and obviously modifications would be required for
or DS use.....

REACTION FIRE is when a character wishes to take an opportunity-fire
at an opposing character that it in the middle of his/her activation.
may only be performed by a character that has NOT yet been activated in
this turn; it allows them to immediately take one fire action, using the
normal snap-fire rules, at the character who is currently being
the firing character then has their marker flipped, and their activation
counted as used up for that turn.

OVERWATCH FIRE is similar to Reaction Fire, in that it allows an
shot against a target that is currently being activated. However,
Fire may ONLY be performed by a character who currently has a OVERWATCH
marker, which must have been placed by the character as an action during
their last activation. The presence of an Overwatch marker allows the
character to make one Fire Action using DOUBLED range bands for their
weapon, just as if they had spent an AIM action prior to firing.
Immediately after the shot, the Overwatch marker is removed - a fresh
may be placed if desired in the character's next activation.
Note: an OVERWATCH marker takes one action to place; it may NOT be
on a character who has made a MOVE with their other action in that

Just some thoughts.....

Jon (GZG)

Prev: RE: [FT] Railguns - Take 4 Next: Re: FT Pilots & Officers