Re: [SG2] Alternate Quick Combat Resolution (Modified Impact Versus ArmourProcedure)

I like this system too. However, I don't think the extended life
expectancy for
power armour troops is really the problem. Like you say, that
instinctively
feels ok. What I'm not so sure about is the same level of immortality
being
handed to troops in D6 armour hiding behind hard cover and in position.
Now they
have an armour rating of 6 and can't be killed by any small arm in the
game.
Equally, D8 troopers in hard cover are in the same heavily armoured boat
and D6
troopers in hard cover can only be killed by Gauss rifles. This feels
less
acceptable. Dudes standing behind walls must get killed all the time.

My aching brain can't come up with a smooth solution but thoughts
include giving
a kill to an impact die that just doubles the armour rating rather than
exceeds
it.

Or maybe not distinguishing between kills and wounds at this stage. All
casualties are treated as just that. You only know whether they're dead
or
wounded when you re-organise to provide medical attention. At that point
you
roll the standard 1-2 Dead 3-5 Wounded 6 OK. This would have two
advantages.
Firstly, it speeds up the combat resolution a little more (by ditching
the
randomise dead and wounded stage). And secondly, I know exactly what you
mean
about death relief. And then the immediate guilt afterwards. It always
feels a
little callous, not to mention wrong, to feel glad when the poor sod is
dead
because at least now you don't have to cart his useless ass around the
battlefield. This way you're forced to check on the status of all
casualties or
risk morale problems for abandoning a comrade before you even bothered
to check
whether he's dead or alive.

Mark

agoodall@att.net wrote:

> This house rule is part of my quest to speed up combat resolution in
> Stargrunt II.
>
> I've playtested the following rule and it seems to work rather well,
with
> some caveats explained in the design notes at the bottom. This is used
as an
> alternative to the quick combat resolution system in the book.
>
> ARMOUR RATING SYSTEM
>
> Figures do not have armour dice. Instead, they have an armour rating.
The
> armour rating is equal to the armour die in the book divided in half.
For
> example, a figure with an armour rating of D8 would have an armour
rating of
> 4.
>
> The armour ratings look like this:
>
> Armour Die   Armour Rating
> N/A	       1
> D4	       2
> D6	       3
> D8	       4
> D10	       5
> D12	       6
>
> The armour rating is calculated _after_ any armour dice shifts. A
figure in
> D8 armour behind hard cover would have D12 armour, which results in an
armour
> rating of 6. A D12 Power Armour figure behind soft cover already has
the
> maximum die possible for armour, so it would continue to have an
armour
> rating of 6.
>
> The combat resolution system remains the same up to, and including,
the
> calculation of the number of potential casualties. The attacking
player rolls
> a number of impact dice equal to the number of potential casualties.
These
> dice are compared to the armour rating of the figures in the squad. If
an
> impact die exceeds the armour rating, one of the potential casualties
is
> wounded. If the impact die exceeds twice the armour rating, one of the
> potential casualties is killed. Otherwise, the armour protected the
potential
> casualty.
>
> (The procedure is essentially the same as if the defending player
rolled his
> armour dice at once and all the dice rolled the same number.)
>
> Once the number of wounded and killed figures is determined, roll
randomly to
> see which figures were wounded and which were killed, and complete the
combat
> resolution phase as normal.
>
> To speed up combat even further, players should round off fractional
> potential casualties instead of rolling for the fraction. For
instance, if
> there are 2 and 7/8 potential casualties, the players should choose to
round
> up the potential casualties to 3 (or, if they prefer less bloody
conflicts,
> round down to 2).
>
> Design Notes
>
> SG2 combat resolution takes a long time, a little too long, in my
opinion. It
> only takes a single opposed die roll to see if a squad misses or
suppresses
> an opposing squad. The number of dice rolls goes way up when a unit
hits the
> target and causes casualties. This is because of the armour roll. You
have to
> make an opposed die roll for each potential casualty. You can't just
roll a
> bunch of dice at once and get the results for all the figures.
>
> The benefit of this house rule is speed. Opposed rolls are slower than
> unopposed rolls. Each player has to pick up the correct dice and roll
them.
> In multi-player situations there is a good chance that at least one of
these
> players will be distracted. Often one of the players wants to be the
last one
> to roll, and so he waits until his opponent has rolled the dice before
he
> rolls his. In testing, a combat that resulted in three or more
potential
> casualties took between two thirds and half as long to resolve in this
system
> than in the regular system. This is simply because it's faster for one
player
> to pick up three dice and compare it to a rating number than it is for
two
> players to dice off against each other three ore more times.
>
> Another benefit is that you can have figures with an armour rating of
1. This
> would be suitable for non-combatants without any armour (such as
unarmed
> townspeople).
>
> There are a couple of caveats to this system.
>
> There is a slightly higher chance of scoring a casualty under this
system
> than under the regular combat resolution system. The average roll for
D8
> armour is 4.5, while in this system the armour rating is a 4. This
doesn't
> have a huge effect in the game. If players are worried about it,
simply round
> down all fractional potential casualties. Example: if there were 2 and
7/8
> potential casualties, the players would round this down to 2.
>
> With this house rule it is impossible to wound a figure in D8 armour
or
> better with a weapon with a D4 impact. Likewise, a figure in D12 power
armour
> is impervious to weapons with a D6 impact or lower. This isn't
necessarily a
> bad thing. Should an archaic musket have _any_ chance of wounding
someone in
> power armour? Scenarios where there is that great a discrepancy
between
> impact rating and armour rating are fairly rare. Only archaic firearms
have
> D4 impact, and only light autopistols and anti-armour submunitions
against
> dispersed targets have D6 impact. If it's an issue for players, they
can
> simply choose to use the regular combat resolution whenever there is a
> difference of three die types or more between the impact die and the
armour
> die. (The anti-armour submunitions issue is the biggie here. A simple
> solution is to shift the impact up one versus PA, as they are
dispersed like
> infantry but armoured like light vehicles.)
>
> With this system it is impossible for weapons with an impact die of
D10 or
> less to roll more than twice the armour rating of power armour troops
(5 or
> 6). This means that it's impossible to kill a power armour trooper
outright,
> unless the same trooper takes two hits in the same fire combat. In
> playtesting this tends to strengthen power armour troops. Comments I
received
> suggest that this was actually a _welcome_ change. PA troops could
still be
> killed (if one trooper took two hits in the same combat resolution, or
if a 1
> was rolled on the trooper's recovery roll), and as mentioned above
they are
> slightly more likely to be wounded than in the regular combat
resolution
> system. What this house rule does is eliminate some of the quirky
situations,
> like a musket rolling a 2 on a D4 killing a PA trooper whose armour
roll was
> a 1. Note that the quick combat resolution system in the rule book has
this
> same issue, as each potential casualty is simply treated as a wounded
figure.
> The quick combat system in the rulebook applies this effect to all
figures,
> not just PA. Again, if this bothers players they may want to use the
regular
> combat resolution system against PA.
>
> Any questions and comments are welcome!
>
> --
> Allan Goodall 	     agoodall@att.net
> http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of Future. 

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. Future accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this email. 

Future may regularly and randomly monitor outgoing and incoming emails
and other telecommunications on its email and telecommunications
systems. By replying to this email you give your consent to such
monitoring.