Prev: Re: SG2 ideas Next: Re: Canadians at ECC

Re: [SG2] 2 questions

From: Allan Goodall <awg@s...>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:51:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [SG2] 2 questions

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:32:41 -0500, Yves Lefebvre <>

>1 - If the defender volontary retreat from close assault, does he loose
>CL ? 
>(I will say yes to put a limiting factor about how many time you could

This was discussed on, I think, the playtest list. The rules don't say.
consensus was that it shouldn't be automatic but should probably be a
or +2/+1/NR test for low/medium/high motivation troops. The idea being
there is always a risk of inciting a rout when withdrawing troops, so
should be a risk of losing CL. On the other hand, they weren't FORCED to
so it probably shouldn't be automatic. 

But this is essentially a house rule. If you don't want a house rule, I
suggest that you do drop a CL level (but only one) if you voluntarily

>2 - What about an independent figure? does he get a suppression each

That's a very good question! An independent figure failing a Confidence
gets a suppression marker if it were to drop one CL, and a panic if it
were to
drop 2 CL. 

I would say that if it loses CL (because you interpret the rule that
way, or
you are using the Confidence Test house rule), then it gains a

>What Brian point out indicate that a unit that didn't wish to be in a
>assault can flee pretty easily (especially sniper). The attacker will
>eventually fail his reaction test before reaching the defender,
>on how you handle voluntary retreat. The defender may be able to do
>fire after that, wich is more effecient if it was a low quality unit
>doing CA...

There was a big discussion on this very point. It's a touchy situation.
players don't like the idea that the attacker could end up out in the
close to the enemy, with the enemy with one suppression marker but not

Others point out that picking the right time in a game turn to launch a
assault is important. 

There are also historical analogies for a defender backing up to a
position and firing at a close assaulting enemy. 

One simple "fix" to this, though, is to allow follow-up movement to be
same distance as the defender's retreat movement (6") or combat move,
attacker's choice. The idea is that during a follow-up attack the
attacker is
less likely to be skulking and more likely to run hell-bent after the
retreating unit. This means that if the attacker would reach the
defender, but
the defender retreats, the attacker could STILL catch up with the
defender. A
defender can't out run an attacker in this case. All it can do is pick
defensive terrain.

>I've been thinking for a while : What about the defender having to do a
>roll each time he has to flee (voluntary or not). This could simulate
>ability of the defender to outrun the attacker (covering their track,
>moving silently, etc). Or maybe an opposed roll between attacker and
>defender. There could also be a cumulative modifier after each fleeing

The problem is that the defender gets a 6" retreat move, but the
attacker must
roll. A simple way to handle this is to make the retreater make a combat
too. The defender may be able to retreat clear out of the way (rolling a
move, for instance, which an attacker may feel it is unlikely to make).
Or, it
may only make it 2" away. This would be essentially the same as your
roll to see if they can flee out of the way.

Allan Goodall
Goodall's Grotto:

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan, 

Prev: Re: SG2 ideas Next: Re: Canadians at ECC