Re: [SG2] detached element questions

At 08:43 AM 2002-09-12 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:23:21 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
>
>>Last week I played my last SG2 game before my wedding (hopefully,
there
>>will be other game after that!). 
>
>Hopefully!
>
>>In one situation, we had a squad with one untreated casuality. There
was a
>>Medic in the command squad 24inch away. Is it possible to form a
detached
>>element of one man and the casuality to go to the medic?
>
>If I read this right, you want to create a detachment of one man plus
the
>casualty, and have the man carry the casualty to the medic? Yes, that
is
>allowed.
>
>However, as you can see, you would be better off to organize your units
so
the
>medic is in a squad by himself, or is an independent character.

A squad of 1 man? That's an idea. I guess it is less powerfull/flexible
than an independent character wich might be a good thing.

>> If so, what happen
>>if the casuality get a wounded (stabilised) result? Can the wounded be
>>transfer to the command squad and the lone trooper go toward his
original
>>squad? 
>
>Yes, that is possible.
>
>>Also, we tried an orbital insertion of a PA squad. However, there was
a
>>lots of bad roll and some troopers were 36" away of some other! Also,
there
>>was 2 ennemy squad in-between. According to the rules, the first few
>>actions of the PA will have to be reorganise to move in integrety
distance.
>>There is no mention of movement in reorganise, but I assume that each
>>trooper can move it's base mobility value in order to reform the
squad.
>
>Yes, the troops can move their base movement to get within integrity
range.
>

Can they do combat move?

>>But in our case, reforming the squad means to move between 2 ennemy
squads.
>>We decide to regroup in 2 parts, one of the part beeing a detached
element.
>>I think it was the more logical way to handle the situation. We rule
that
>>the main squad will be able to act normally (ie: fire), but the
detached
>>element will only be able to try to get back in the main squad. Does
is
>>make sense?
>
>This is one way to rule. The rulebook doesn't really cover this
situation
>well. In reality, the units would form ad hoc squads and operate as new
units.
>(See Stephen Ambrose's book _Band of Brothers_). You should probably
allow
the
>detached elements to operate as independent squads. They would attempt
to
link
>up with their squad, but they should be able to fight and move like a
regular
>squad until that happens.
>

OK, I think I will suggest to the defending players that we allow the
detached element to fire but it will remain a detached element, so it
will
need a transfer of action. This will be a bit less powerfull than a
squad
of his own. This might give more chance to be accepted by the defending
players!

>>I took picture of the game with a digital camera (I want one for
myself
>>now!). This is wonderfull : Each turn I use the same angle to take the
>>picture and playing them back, you get a nice slide show of the game.
I
>>should eventually do an AAR with text and picture but the game is not
>>terminated yet. It migth take some weeks until we finish it since I
will be
>>very busy in the next couple of week! And far away in a trip to
Tunesia
>>just after the wedding (trying to find some star wars tatooine
location
>>amongst other thing)...
>
>Congratulations, and the best of luck to you!
>

Thanks!

Yves

>Allan Goodall			agoodall@hyperbear.com
>http://www.hyperbear.com
>
>"We come into the world and take our chances
> Fate is just the weight of circumstances
> That's the way that Lady Luck dances
> Roll the bones." - N. Peart
>
>