Re: SG2 Platoon leader casualties

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:58:59 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:

>I'm not sure about this. On page 16 Transfering Action : "For a
superior
>officer to transfer an activation, he must make a succesful
Communication
>action in the same way as a normal communications". So, to me, it look
like
>the Transfering Action is a special form of Communications action.

Except that you don't need to do a Communicate action to do a Transfer
Action
if the unit is within 6" of the squad. So, does this mean that a unit
that is
suppressed can't tell guys within 60 metres what to do, but he can tell
guys a
kilometre away what to do?

I just posted my interpretation, that the Transfer Action and the
Communicate
action are both listed separately, yet only the Communicate -- of the
two --
is specifically allowed to occur when the unit is suppressed. It is
incredibly
unclear, and I can see the other side of the coin. For a house rule, I'd
allow
a transfer action while suppressed, but I'd also either add a Reaction
Test
before it was allowed, or add a modifier to the communication roll. This
is
because there _should_ be an adverse effect for the commander being
suppressed. 

>So this
>means that calling artillery can be done while suppressed as it fall
under
>the communicate action.

Yes, definitely, this is something that should be allowed. Historically
it
happened quite a lot. What is a Transfer Action representing? *shrug*
Not
sure, but I always assumed that the commander had to be a bit more aware
of
what his units were doing for a Transfer Action to work, hence the
reason that
it doesn't work while suppressed. 

>Anyway, I see your point. It's open to interpretation I think...

Oh, definitely. It's a very unclear part of the rules. Unfortunately,
much of
the SG2 rulebook is unclear.

>All the game I played, we allow transfering action while suppressed.
I'm
>under the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big
>factor the "command squad in the corner" syndrome. 

Not allowing it didn't increase the problem... because it's already a
big
problem anyway! *L* Seriously, yes, it will make players even more
likely to
move their commander out of harm's way. I have a house rule that makes
the
"commander in the corner" syndrome less likely. I will consider allowing
Transfer Actions while suppressed to work, too. 

On the other hand, I see Tom's original post, too, and suppressing a
commander
ought to have an effect on the Transfer Action. Perhaps the problem is
that
even my house rule (where by a +1 communication roll is needed if the
commander is outside of LOS to the unit and further than 6") isn't nasty
enough.

My current house rule is this:
- Commander is within 6" of unit and in LOS, no communication roll is
needed
for a Transfer Action.
- Commander is within 6" of unit but out of LOS (such as a building or
hill
between the commander and the unit), a communication roll is needed for
a
Transfer Action.
- Commander is more than 6" away from the unit but is in LOS of the
unit, a
communication roll is needed for a Transfer Action.
- Commander is more than 6" away from the unit and is out of LOS of the
unit,
a communication roll at +1 is needed for a Transfer Action.

Maybe something else needs to be done. Note that in a heavy EW
environment,
communication rolls can be nasty so the commander is less likely to be
in the
corner. Of course, the EW rules aren't very clear either...

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know 
well!" - Joe Ancis