Prev: Re: [FT] Defending with SMLs Next: RE: [Ft} FBII Ship Bits

RE: [SG2] Questions

From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@d...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 06:44:51 -0500
Subject: RE: [SG2] Questions

I accept this interpretation of the rules and withdraw my own (bowing to
play experience).

Brian Bell   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Goodall []
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:46 PM
> To:
> Subject:	Re: [SG2] Questions
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:49:18 -0500, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <> wrote:
> >[Bri] Hmmm. The rules seem to contradict themselves. 
> Yes, they do.
> >A non-penetrating
> >hit would seem to place the vehicle under suppression. Page 18 states
> >that suppression on a vehicle prohibits the crew from exiting the
> vehicle.
> The rule on page 18 states that a vehicle will take a Suppression
> in...
> uh... cases where the vehicle would take suppression. This is implied
> mean
> that a minor hit, or a non-penetrating major hit, will apply a
> marker.
> So, a non-penetrating hit MUST place a suppression marker. That's a
> The rule on page 39 states that a non-penetrating hit causes a
> Test, failure of which means the vehicle occupants MUST leave the
>  It is possible to have a Suppression on a vehicle while not hitting
> It is
> impossible to have a non-penetrating hit without also having a
> Suppression.
> The rule requires you to leave the vehicle when you test Confidence
> a
> non-penetrating hit. So, I interpret the forced bailing of a hit
> to
> override the "can't leave the vehicle if suppressed" rule. I interpret
> that as
> "can't voluntarily leave the vehicle if suppressed".
> >I would say that, no the crew would not leave the vehicle until the 
> >suppression was removed. But I would suggest a house rule that the
> >could not perform combat actions until they succeeded in the
> >check or remove the suppression marker.
> That actually goes against the rule that says vehicle occupants are
> stopped from performing actions in a suppressed vehicle. It also
means, in
> a
> big game, you'll have to have some way of indicating vehicles that
> suppressed from vehicles that were suppressed and failed a
> hit
> confidence test. 
> In the interest of simplicity, the interpretation that the failed
> Confidence
> Test forces a bail out regardless of suppression is the easiest to
> >[Bri] Yes, if a sniper chooses to use normal movement instead of 
> >hidden movement, he is placed on the table. I doubt that this would
> happen
> >unless the sniper decided that leaving quickly was a better option
> >staying hidden.
> I've seen it happen in cases where a sniper decides to become part of
> squad.
> I've also seen it happen in scenarios where a sniper had to escape
from a
> board or moved to occupy a terrain feature for victory conditions.
> Allan Goodall
> Goodall's Grotto:
> "Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
> toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
> always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"

Prev: Re: [FT] Defending with SMLs Next: RE: [Ft} FBII Ship Bits