Re: [SG] Two fire actions

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:19:17 -0500, "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

>Has anyone tried a houserule allowing two fire actions by the squad
>per turn?  Not "allowing a unit to split its fire", but allowing the
>same troops to fire twice.  That would improve life for the defenders,
>which sounds realistic.  It would also increase the value of placing
>suppressions--even if your target always removes suppressions with one
>try, that unsuppress is going to take time away from his shooting,
>which it currently does not.  Comment?

This is a very interesting suggestion. 

I think in plain, vanilla SG2 allowing two fire actions is a bit much. I
suspect that Jon and his playtesters came to this conclusion during the
design. The problem with two fire actions is that there is no way in the
vanilla rules to interrupt the firing. A unit can fire twice with
impunity.
The only reaction fire allowed, in fact, is against a unit that moves
twice in
the same activation.

FMAS testing, though, suggests that allowing a unit to fire with both
actions
works. FMAS has overwatch, and it has reserve actions. If you have
Overwatch
rules, I think allowing two fire actions is viable. If you are using a
Reserve
Action rule, I think it makes it easier to use Reserve Actions. Many of
us no
longer play vanilla SG2, overwatch rules being a very popular add on. In
the
case of modified SG2, allowing a unit to fire with both actions could
make
sense (I'm holding my final opinion until this is playtested).

(Re: Reserve Actions. In FMAS a figure can take an action and "hold" it
for
later use. Folks have suggested trying this with SG2. One of the
problems with
using it in SG2 is that you have to remember which units fired with
their
first action, so that you don't allow a unit to fire with the first
action,
reserve the second action and then fire later in the turn. A counter
could
work, of course, but it makes the game a little smoother if you don't
have to
worry about it.)

One thing that sort of bugged me in SG2 is the fact that a unit suffers
no
penalty for moving and firing in a turn. A unit is just as accurate and
dangerous if it moves with one action and fires with another. A
defensive unit
that doesn't move has no bonus for sitting there and firing. It's just
as
accurate as a similar unit that moved and fired. A unit moving to the
edge of
some woods and firing with one activation, and then firing and moving
out of
the woods with another activation, will be just as devestating as a unit
that
sat at the edge of the woods, immobile, the whole time. Allowing the
unit to
fire with both actions would give the immobile unit an advantage.

I see some areas that need to be addressed if you decide to try this
house
rule.

1. Split Fire. The issue of whether or not allowing a single unit to
split
fire and fire at the same target twice is cheesy pretty much goes away.
However, I'd still stipulate that if you split the fire of a squad and
have
part of the squad fire at one target and another part fire at another
target,
both have to do so with a different action. In other words, a unit can
fire
with both actions, but if a whole or part of the squad wants to fire at
two
different targets it costs an action per target. Remember that the squad
isn't
activated in SG2, it's the squad _leader_ that is activated.

2. Missile Weapons Firing Separately. A number of folks have expressed a
dislike for the rule that requires missile weapons to fire with a
separate
action. For example, if you have an NSL squad with 6 troopers, one of
which
has a missile launcher, it costs one action to fire the five troopers at
a
target plus a second action to fire the missile weapon at the same
target.
Since we've playtested using missile weapons to fire at individual PA as
though they were point targets, and since it makes sense that certain
missile
weapons could have an effect against infantry, I don't see the need to
retain
this stipulation. If you are going to let units fire with both actions,
I
think you _have_ to remove this stipulation. 

As an example, say you have the above NSL squad with 4 troopers, a
plasma
gunner and a missile trooper. The squad has 4 IAVRs. You could fire all
4
IAVRs and the plasma gun at an APC with one action, but you couldn't
fire the
missile launcher at it with the same action. This doesn't seem right.
Granted
the rule is there because missile fire is a different mechanism and it
might
get confusing for some to have to resolve two combats against the same
target,
but I think it should be allowable. What I would do, however, is only
allow
one suppression against the vehicle, not two (in the case where the
IAVRs and
the missile launcher both caused a suppression). I'd also only do a
casualty
roll for troops inside a vehicle after both parts of the combat were
resolved
(the IAVRS/plasma gun, and the missile launcher) and use the best result
(from
the point of view of the people firing) for calculating the casualties.

3. You will get more double suppressions with this system and more
casualties.
You could theoretically do double suppressions two two different units
with
one squad (assuming a squad leader became a casualty in both instances,
which
isn't very likely but possible). It's been suggested that units that are
suppressed should get a bonus to the range die, as suppression means
they are
actively trying to avoid being hit. This is an interesting house rule,
but it
has problems. For one thing, it means that it's actually harder to
suppress a
unit that's already suppressed, when in reality it should be at least as
easy
if not easier. Instead, I suggest shifting the armour die up one for
units
that were previously suppressed. This represents the fact that they are
really
hugging cover, while not affecting the probability of hitting and
suppressing
the unit. I think this helps temper the nasty effects of being able to
fire
twice at the same unit.

Those are my two cents worth, anyway...

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