RE: [SG2] APFCs in Stargrunt

Owen Glover wrote:
>
>Well Brian, to me these seem quite workable, although the use of an
extra
>dice against GMS seems a little out of place. The defence roll against
GMS
>is an EW roll. Although it is getting down to multiple die rolls,
perhaps a
>secondary roll of the APFC vs the GMS if teh GMS is successful in
beating
>the tanks EW would be more appropriate.

Actually, he explicitly stated that APFCs do _not_ work against 
GMS. They only work against IAVRs.

>One thing I could see happening is a change in anti-infantry tactics
for
>tanks. Since you are proposing an automatic d10 attack on any infantry
I
>have this vision of people rushing their tanks up to an infantry squad
and
>*POW*.

This could be fixed by stating that the APFCs only fire if troops 
move within APFC range, i.e. the firing mechanism is motion sensitive.

Thus, if you drive up to a squad, the APFCs wouldn't fire until the 
squad moves. They would also fire if the squad moved into the APFC 
range of a stationary vehicle.

>I might suggest the owner of teh tank simply stating at the turn if his
APFC
>is ACTIVE or IN-ACTIVE or perhaps place a chit on top of the turret to
>indicate this(OK ALL YOU CHIT HATERS CAN IGNORE THIS!) or mark on a
>sheet/card teh APFC status. As you say this can be computer controlled.

Personally, I don't think that this is necessary. IFF as an integrated 
part of the future GI's dog tags (or subdermal implant) is more 
elegant, if a little dystopic, IMO. Specification of ACTIVE/INACTIVE
could come into play for lower tech forces though.

>However I would only play this rule in games when the proposed rules
for
>Vehicle Assault are used otherwise it out balances in favour of the
tank
>even more.

More likely it would just change your AT tactics. How often do you 
destroy vehicles from a scant 6" away?

>We'll try it and see.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Owen G

       Tony Christney
       tchristney@questercorp.com

  "If the end user has to worry about how the program was 
   written then there is something wrong with that program"
				  -Bjarne Stroustrup