Re: Small squads/random losses

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Roger Books wrote:

> On 19-Apr-01 at 13:54, agoodall@canada.com (agoodall@canada.com)
wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 April 2001, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> > 
> > > Recalling the recent discussion about squad sizes, and a good many
people
> > > favouring relatively small squads, it struck me that these would
be
> > > rather severely affected by any reductions in size due to the
'under
> > > strength units' rules on page 3. 
> > > 
> > > Am I correct in guessing most people elect not to apply these
rules? Or
> > > do you feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the
> > > disadvantages, even with these rules? 
> > 
> > So, with that in mind, fielding a small squad is doing just that:
fielding
> > a small squad. As such, the under strength units rules apply. If you
want 
> > to gain the benefits of all those extra activations by using small 
> > squads, you run the risk of losing a lot of figures to the 
> > understrength rules. 
> 
> You aren't going to lose any more figures with small squads or large
> squads.  The rules say you roll once per figure, not once per squad.

Yes. But face it, the odds of losing your leader are a lot bigger in the
smaller squads, same for heavy weapons. Also, since larger squads
usually
have a bit of 'spare' FP, they can do without the first 'standard grunt'
loss a lot easier than, say, a 4 figure squad.

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE63zmuJXH58oo6ncURAk8UAJ4qkufhf9eClx4DRF1wjw5J+wON5gCcC5Hy
IWt8DWpgRWg9m5ZtJJlg+V4=
=mnc9