Re: [SG] More questions from the weekend - Stargrunt rules questions.

Hi Folks,

I'm going to jump in here as I refereed the game Tom is mentioning, and
thought I might add a bit to the discussion.

>This weekend, we also played an SG2 battle, 
>and the following questions arose.
>
>1) Debark/embark: 
>Does this take 1 action from the infantry and 
>one from the vehicle, or merely one from the 
>infantry and none from the vehicle? Adrian 
>argues that it takes only one from the infantry, 
>and I the opposite. He takes his from a 
>particular reading of the text passage in the 
>rules, I take mine from my reading of the same 
>passage and from DS2 which does inflict a 
>penalty on both (and from the fact it seems 
>odd your vehicle could move a full move then 
>so could your troops). 
>

The bit of the rules in question is on page 24 of the Stargrunt
rulebook.

It discusses transporting infantry.  The line in question says:

"Getting troops into or out of a vehicle takes one MOVE action per
squad/unit, during which neither the troops or the vehicle may do
anything
else.  When disembarking from a vehicle, the troops should all be placed
... they are then free to use their other action to move away, fire, or
whatever.  To load troops in, the unit must be moved so that all figures
are within 6" of the vehicle, then one action is spent to get everyone
on
board. If loading more than one unit into a large carrier or truck, it
takes one action to get each individual SQUAD embarked, and each may
only
board when they are themselves ACTIVATED."

Tom was suggesting that the VEHICLE has to spend an action for a squad
to
embark, as well as the squad spending an action.  I suggested that the
book
doesn't say anywhere that the vehicle has to spend an action, and in
fact
pretty clearly states that the action is spent by the squad.  The bit of
confusion stems, I think, from the bit of the quote that says "the
troops
or the vehicle may do nothing else."  Tom was saying that this suggests
that the vehicle is in some way spending an action to embark the troops,
since it may do nothing else.  I think it is just an example of
ambiguous
wording, and really just means that during the embarcation action, which
is
spent by the squad, nothing else may happen with either the squad or the
vehicle.  But this is actually a bit misleading, since because of the
way
the stargrunt turn sequence and unit activation system works, during the
action taken by the embarking squad, NOTHING else can happen anyway. 
There
is NO situation in the rules that would allow the vehicle in question to
move while a separate unit was activated and getting on board.

Irrespective of what DS2 does or does not say, that isn't really
relevant
to what the Stargrunt rules say, and I can't find any reference to a
vehicle having to spend an action for troops to embark.  Am I missing a
reference in the Stargrunt rules here?

Tom suggests that it seems odd for a vehicle to be able to move fully
(both
actions spent moving) and then embark or disembark troops who can take a
full move (I believe he means move twice).  First, the squad
disembarking
can't take a full move.  They spend an action disembarking, so could
only
spend one action moving.  Second, within the context of the somewhat
ambiguous time length of a Stargrunt turn (which we all seem to commonly
assume to be roughly 5 minutes), a vehicle moving isn't going to spend
the
entire length of the turn moving.  It is assumed that part of the turn
is
moving, but that includes weaving about, dodging by different bits of
cover, stopping and listening, etc.  So, the whole 5 minutes isn't taken
up
with moving - there is more time in there to do other stuff (like sit
and
listen) and that extra time could be when troops embark, disembark, etc.

>2) Does it seem sensible to anyone that an 
>infantry squad in hard cover can only be 
>targeted at 360m by a DFFG/4 or 5? 

This situation came up several times, and we all agreed it didn't make
any
sense, except as an artificial limitation on the rules to prevent
vehicles
from dominating the game.

Vehicle weapon range bands are 12" multiplied by the size class of the
target, which in the case of infantry is 1.  So, the maximum range of a
tank main gun of any type in Stargrunt is 60" (600 meters), and if the
infantry target is in position in hard cover, would only be 24" (240
meters).  This seems awfully short.

Now, we understand that they are talking about the maximum *effective*
range, not the maximum possible range, but still.  Somehow, it doesn't
make
sense that a whacking great big gun on a tank could shoot effectively
roughly the same distances as a squad of troops with their rifles...

>3) When a heavy weapon is fired at a squad 
>(said DFFG), the way it was resolved was FC + 
>QD vs. Range die, and casualties were 
>determined as infantry fire. OTOH, I maintain it 
>should have been resolved as FC + QD vs. 
>Range die, and if a hit was scored, all squad 
>members should take a D8 attack (heavy 
>weapons versus dispersed targets). Are either 
>of these right? Or are neither? If not, what is? 

Well, the wording of the "heavy weapons fire against infantry" section
on
page 40 is pretty specific.  It says FC + Q vs. RANGE, and  "add these
up
as normal if effective fire is scored, and work out potential hits
accordingly."

It doesn't say "against all members of the squad"...  For effect, it
says
"a d8 is rolled against the Armour of whichever troops take the
potential
hits" which most certainly does not say that ALL the troops take the
hits.

Now, SHOULD heavy weapons be more effective?  Do we want them to be?  I
maintain that they should be somewhat more effective, but I don't want
the
game to suddenly be dominated by vehicles if they are used.

Where this problem is MOST often seen in our games is when RFAC are
used.
An RFAC/1 is roughly equivalent to a .50 cal machinegun.  These are
devestatingly effective against infantry, in the "real world", but if
you
read the Stargrunt rules strictly, are pretty ineffective vs. infantry.
They would AT MOST do d8 impact hits (because an RFAC/1 is a "heavy
weapon"
according to the descriptions on page 29, and heavy weapons vs. infantry
do
d8 impact hits).  SO, you have the situation where a gauss SAW in the
hands
of an infantry squad will do more damaging hits than a .50 mounted on a
parked (and therefore stable) tank.  That doesn't make sense.

I tend to give RFAC a boost re impact when it comes to hitting infantry,
and let them use their d10 impact.  But even then, it is less than the
Gauss SAW which does d12 impact, and is certainly less than a HAMR which
does d12x2 vs. all targets.

>gunners with that variety of ammo? Or is the 
>HAMR just well over the top? (Note: An AAR 
>does D10 impact. The RFAC D10. Hmmmm....) 
>Thoughts? 

The AAR does d10 impact.  The RFAC does d10* impact.  Very different.

AAR damage can affect armour class 1 vehicles, using the "small arms vs.
point targets rules".  RFAC damage affects all armour classes using the
"major hit/minor hit" system, so it can do between d10 and d10x2 damage
to
all armoured targets.  That means an RFAC/1 with a REALLY lucky set of
dice
could kill a tank with armour class 5.	The AAR can't hurt anything with
armour 2 or better.

However, RFAC vs. Power Armour troops?	They are treated according to
the
rules as dispersed infantry just like guys in their regular fatigues. 
I've
tried running games where RFAC hits on PA get their full effectiveness
(d10
x 2) vs. PA, and it seems to work ok.  Certainly makes things hot for
the
PA...

>Interesting facts:
>The Queen's Own Rifles NAC infantry won the 
>day against the Gurkhas in the soccer match 1-
>0.

The NAC players very sportingly set up a big pile of their troops around
the landing pad, watching the game.  They had been told that this
facility
was a "secure" supply base, and the two NAC platoons were there for some
rest and refitting.  Since they were told the troops were there to rest,
they decided that NAC marines and Gurkhas would naturally want to
compete
in some manner, and had challenged each other to a soccer game.  They
had
an NAC Marine squad and a Gurkha squad actually playing the game (and
included a ball... a nut of some kind, I think), using opposed rolls
with
their squad quality die to see who was winning...  They didn't start
moving
their units away from the game and toward the action until the combined
FSE/ESU forces actually started attacking.

It was really funny, and great gaming sportsmanship.  Kudos to the three
NAC players.

And they ended up kicking arse, anyway....   The FSE and ESU were cursed
with some of the most impressively bad luck I've seen, and the NAC side
played very well.  Their most severe casualties happened when the FSE
tank
put a main gun shot into the top floor of a a building that an NAC squad
was using.  The building collapsed, and 7 out of 8 troops in the squad
were
casualties.  Other than that, they lost a combat walker and ONE Gurkha
rifleman (out of three full platoons, two walkers and two jeeps).  The
FSE
lost about 50% of their infantry and all but one (out of five) armoured
vehicles (they started with four APCs and a tank).  The ESU made out a
lot
better, losing their combat walker and a couple of infantry.  The FSE
really took it on the chin, and the mass Gurkha close assault was great
to
watch.	The FSE Legionnaire squad at the receiving end routed, and ran
like
crazy only to be caught and captured a turn or so later.

Lots of fun.

***************************************

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca