RE: Support Weapon fire in SG2

Tom,

	Did you send the same message three times or am I back to
receiving
dupes again?

	Daniel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Barclay [mailto:kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:30 AM
> To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Support Weapon fire in SG2
> 
> 
> 1) I find the literalistic reading of the rules 
> possibly correct, but entirely hilarious. It so fails 
> the test of common sense that it is not funny. 
> And it fails to (in any particular way) limit 
> "gamesmanship". 
> 
> 2) I think Allan has the right of it in describing 
> Jon's probable rules thought-process. I don't 
> think Jon envisioned the common use of multiple 
> SAWs in the real world (look at most of the 
> SAW minis, they don't look like light SAWs like 
> the M249, but more like (sizewise) an old .30 
> Browning). I think this situation was covered by 
> "play the game, not the rules". I don't beleive it is 
> explicitly covered in the rules (Individual fire of a 
> support weapon is, but not group fire of support 
> weapons). 
> 
> So, my 0.02:
> 
> 1) We know squads in SG2 typically are 6-8 
> guys with 1 SAW (from the rules). We know in 
> reality, they are 6-10, often with 2. Pick which 
> you like more and go with it. You don't need 
> Jon's permission and you've got it anyway....
> 
> 2) If you don't allow multiple SAWs to fire as 
> part of a fire action, let me hypothecate a 
> scenario for you: Squad of 6 (Ldr, 3 x rifle, 2 x 
> SAW). Bad shooting happens, they lose 4 men 
> (oops, everyone with a rifle is dead). They make 
> an inspired morale roll and stay in shape to 
> fight. (This can happen under SG morale 
> rules....). So.... if I move the squad, only one of 
> these guys can fire because both have support 
> weapons. If I'd had 3 SAWs, one could NEVER 
> fire. Even at the same target! Fascinating. But if 
> one guy drops his SAW and picks up a rifle 
> (illegal I suspect in the rules, but possible), then 
> they could fire in the same action. Utterly 
> senseless. 
> 
> 3) Gamesmanship is not prevented. I build a 
> squad of 10 with 3 rifles (just in case) and 7 
> SAWs. (Reminds me of Mr. Hudak's Nuns in the 
> Carnage Con Queso game...). Heck, give the 
> rifleman each an IAVR so that if they're all alive, 
> two of them can fire IAVRs (and their buddies 
> carry spares). The unit likely rolls (while unhurt) 
> quality + 1 rifle + 2 IAVR + 7 SAW. Is this legal? 
> I believe so. Is it cheesy enough to be GW? 
> Why yes. If I ran into a player who wanted to do 
> this outside of the Cheese Game, I'd sic Ben 
> Kenobi and his Harem on them.... 
> <Speaking of which, someone send me Joel 
> Frock's email again.... I lost it in the job 
> dislocation and we're in transaction....>
> 
> 4) So, if situations that could normally occur can 
> cause an "unnatural flow" (ie parts of the unit 
> can't fire together at the same target), and if it 
> doesn't prevent cheese (it does not, good sense 
> does), then this rules vaccuum (or even written 
> restriction) should be replaced with common 
> sense. I'm pretty sure that common sense 
> dictates whoever in a squad wants to fire at a 
> target can. The only exception is GMS, but that 
> isn't even terribly sensible, it just seems unlikely 
> you'd fire GMS at the same targets for infantry 
> small arms and the mechanics are different so 
> there are semi-sound reasons for this limit. But 
> 2 SAWs? I see no good reason for a 
> prohibition. If someone insists on being cheesy, 
> you have three choices:
> a) convince them not to be by approaching the 
> discussion from a "what do they do in reality" 
> Pov
> b) give up, find some less cheesy gamers
> c) join them and take up the Call of the 
> Limburger
> 
> 4) How to handle differing impact weapons:
> There is a clear precedent in rifles and other 
> small arms. If I have a squad with a d8 impact 
> rifle and a d10 impact rifle, the rules say I use 
> d8 impact for everyone (the worst). I think the 
> same axiom can define how support weapon 
> impacts are handled - take the worse of the lot. 
> It isn't as real as using random determination, 
> but we don't do it with rifles of differing impacts, 
> so we should probably not with support weapons 
> (and it is thus made simple and internally 
> consistent with the other rules). 
> 
> Allan, I think this one should be added to the list 
> of things to cover in SG3 (which undoubtedly will 
> arrive sometime after BDS and FMA). And 
> something for the vacc heads like FT3. And 
> maybe DS3. But it will (eventually) arrive I'm 
> sure. In the meantime, use common sense. 
> Don't be a slave to the rules. If you feel 
> compelled to stick to the written rules even when 
> they seem insensate, then you're a good 
> candidate for many GW games.....
> 
> :) Tomb