RE: [SG] Unit Cohesion

I thought I would throw this out for some opinions. My gaming group and
I
have tried a few different ways of playing SG2, and they all make sense
on
some level. We are still debating which way promotes the fastest,
easiest
gamepay, and which makes the most sense.

(1) The models do not represent the actual positions of the troops. You
must
declare the actual position of the models each time they are moved. "The
actual models won't stand up on that hill, so I'll put them on top. But
they
are really at the edge of the ridgeline, in hard cover". "All these
fig's
are at the edge of this wood, but this unit is IN the wood." This method
is
more is line with the groundscale of 1"=10m.

(2) A more WYSIWYG approach, if you can see a model you can hit it, with
a
few restrictions. Obviously, the viewpoint is from the firing mini's
perspective (if in doubt we use a laser pointer held next to the firing
mini
to determine what can be seen). This approach has the side effect of
lessening the amount of cover on a table, since a model on top of a hill
is
in the open instead of using the available hillcrest.

Eric

The Gearhead Page
http://members.home.net/mruseless/wargames.html

 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT d++(--) S+:- a33>20 c+++ U-- P L E? W++ o- K w>++ O M+@ !V PS+ PE++
Y+
PGP t+ !5 X++ R+++ tv- b+ DI+ D++ G++ e+++ h--- r+++ y+++>$
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------