RE: [sg] Mechanized Cavalry

> From: Bell, Brian K (Contractor) [mailto:Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil]
> > From:	mark.langsdorf@amd.com [SMTP:mark.langsdorf@amd.com]
> > 
> > > Mounting or unmounting a vehicle is a movement action. Unmounted
> > > in this sense refers to a vehicle that has stopped, whether the
> > > figure is still on the vehicle or not. A mounted or dismounted
> > > chit should be used to indicate if a figure is mounted or
unmounted
> > > (if you have mounted and unmounted figures, the actual figure may
> > > be switched instead of using a chit). 
> > 
> >	I don't understand this part.  It takes an action to stop 
> > driving?  That sounds counter-intuitive.  Shouldn't the unit be 
> > able to move while mounting or dismounting?
> > 
> [Bri] The intent was to make the figure more accurate in ranged
> combat OFF the vehicle. If you make mounting/dismounting a "free
> action" then the figure would always claim to be dismounted when
> firing. By making mounting/dismounting a movement action, the 
> figure cannot use 2 actions to move then in the next activation 
> fire as dismounted (no penalty). By making mounting/dismounting
> an action, the figure is at a minimum, bringing the vehicle to a 
> full stop, if not getting off the vehicle. 

	I see your point, but I think the distinction is too 
complicated.

>   I started with on or off the vehicle for mounted/dismounted. But 
> then someone was sure to say "but if I stop the vehicle, it is just
> as steady as if the figure was not on it, so should not have to 
> take a penalty or pay the action to dismount the vehicle". So,
> I decided to define Dismounted as the vehicle fully stopped.
>   But, I guess it can be confusing. So I will remove the definition
> of Unmounted. If you are on the vehicle, you take a penalty to
> your ability to fire.
>   Mounting/Dismounting will the same as entering/exiting an APC.
> To mount a mechcav vehicle, the figure must be within 6" of the 
> vehicle. It uses a movement action to mount it. If dismounting,
> it uses a movement action to do so and may move up to 6" away
> from the vehicle.

> > > As targets 
> > > 
> > >  - Units of mechanized cavalry are treated as infantry for
purposes
> > > of targeting. 
> > >  - If not in a unit or detached as individual figures, mechanized
> > > cavalry are treated as individual figures (wee p. 26) 
> > 
> >	There should be a bonus to hit mounted cavalry - compared to
> > an infantryman on foot, they're big targets and they have a harder
> > time taking cover.
> > 
> [Bri] Not any larger than Power Armor (and usually a lower profile
> since they are usually hunched over). These are small conveyances.
> If it is designed for 2 people, it is a size 1 vehicle and uses the 
> vehicle rules.

	Hmmm, I was thinking of Gunderian's comments at the start of
"Achtung! Panzer" - something about a cavalry regiment dying in a few
minutes to a company of machine guns, since they were such good targets
and couldn't go to ground.
	Agreeing with your statement, I would suggest that mounted
cavalry
be targeted as though it were Power Armor - this normally shouldn't
matter, but if people have house rules (for GMS/Ps or whatever), then
mounted cavalry should be subject to them.
	I'll have to talk with the local group about a house rule to
make
Power Armor easier to hit - it should certainly be easier to detect, 
with a higher IR signature and all. 

> >	At an absolute minimum, cavalry shouldn't be able to go into
> > position while mounted or moving.
> > 
> [Bri] Agreed. Unless there are vehicle positions prepared 
> (i.e. hull-down positions for AFVs.)

	Sure, but a unit of motorcyclists shouldn't be able to take
cover in the "open" without dismounting.