Re: SG2 leaders, bail outs, and GZG rules clarifications {LONG}

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:06:56 -0400, "Thomas Barclay"
<kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca>
wrote:

>First, the strength of the game system is that 
>people can play it the way they want.

I mostly agree with your reasons for not having a compendium, but I
disagree
about the clarifications. There are huge gaping holes in SG2 that could
use an
official ruling. Bail outs, EW use, multiple support weapons come
immediately
to mind. I have my own rules. I usually meet people at conventions, and
I may
not want to play their version of fixing these rules, and they may not
want to
play mine. An official fix stops arguments.

>If you can't make 
>decisions and enjoy living with them, the group 
>has some problems of its own beyond the 
>scope of the game. 

Except when two people have their own interpretation and both feel they
are
right. Oh, and a crucial part of the game hinges on it. Mix in a late
night
session and too much caffeine and you can get hurt feelings. It happens
to the
best of people.

Mostly I haven't had problems, but I've seen situations where house
rules get
out of hand. Next thing you know, house rules do what you're afraid a
compendium will do, and the group disolves or moves to another game.

I would like to see the above holes "fixed". A compendium isn't needed.
If we
can get Jon to make a ruling and stuff it into BDS we should be fine.

>And people 
>won't agree with the fixes he picks, so they'll do 
>their own thing anyway. 

Except you will have a base game with which to teach players at
conventions.
I've had players ask me a couple of times, "Okay, how close is this to
the
ACTUAL game, and how much is yours?" I don't usually use house rules at
conventions; I like a clean game to teach players.

I'll give an example: EW units. It's not clear whether Jon wants to make
EW
set "turn on" an action or not. It's not listed in the actions list.
It's not
mentioned in the rules. It looks like you activate the EW unit and get
the
chits, from the way the rules work. Several of us on the list thrashed
this
out and decided you had to spend an action. Works well. But, Jon's
sample
TO&Es that have command units with EW attached are at a distinct
disadvantage
against a force with separate EW units. Suppose Jon decides to go the
route of
creating a "Company Book" for SG2 ala the Fleet Books in FT, or he
decides to
add forces to BDS. It would be nice to have this issue officially fixed
in
order to have a common base to work with.

>1) If armour crew (as opposed to infantry) bails 
>out, they automatically lose 1 quality level (they 
>can do infantry stuff, just badly - imagine 
>infantry trying to operate a 100mm Gauss 
>Cannon). 

Hmmm... I usually don't even worry about the crew. I just let them
"disappear". The only time I have them on the table is if they count
towards
casualty counts for victory purposes.

>3) Crew or troops bailing out also get to drop 
>a morale level from having their vehicle shot out 
>from under them. 

They have to roll morale for taking casualties. I could understand you
wanting
to give them a Confidence Test if they are in a vehicle that blows up,
but I
don't like the idea of an automatic Confidence Level drop.

>2) When a major impact is scored on a vehicle, 
>I double the bail out rolls. Otherwise people 
>seemed to survive far too easily. 

Must be a local thing. *L* I have had squads gutted with a vehicle hit.
On a
major impact they are already rolling twice the weapon class against
their
armour. Put your guys in D6 armour, or run a WW2 game with D4 armour and
see
what happens... *L*

>3) I don't like on the move stuff, just because it 
>looks more complex to administer. 

You'd have no problem. I know this, because I've read your Overwatch
rules,
Tom. ;-)

> And the CO 
>being busy doesn't necessarily mean his squad 
>can't act well. I think if you cut the CO to 1 
>transfer per round, you gut stargrunt a bit. It is 
>part of the mechanic that differentiates it and 
>makes it interesting. 

I'm going to try the 1 Transfer Action thing a bit more. I'm not sure
how it
will work. I've been thinking more about this. I do like the two
transfers,
but I don't like that leaders end up in the corner of the board. I
playtested
a little more last night, and I think giving leaders 1 free transfer and
only
allowing one more is going to be too powerful. 

I suspect that it's going to be unreconcilable. We keep 2 transfers and
live
with leaders hiding out on the table. The proposals just aren't nasty
enough
to "waste" an action moving when the command unit could be transferring.
Giving them one transfer for free is okay if they keep moving, but it
makes
them too powerful when the command unit sits still (essentially giving
them 3
actions). You mention that you think the game will lose some of its feel
if 1
transfer is taken away, and you are probably right. Allowing moving
while
doing a transfer has been roundly panned. 

I think we're stuck.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"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, 
   "Jack B. Quick, Boy Inventor"