Re: [GZG] FMA skirmish

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Derek A. Rogillio" <derek@rogillio.net>

> 
> Are suppression and stress really the same thing though?  I can 
> completely see someone who is pinned and suppressed, but not likely to

> run.	For example, indiscriminate fire towards a position that has no 
> chance to hit might keep you pinned behind cover until the attacker 
> stops firing.  However, there is very little stress since you can't be

> hit.	I guess I'd have to see how it works in the game.
> 

I think you're mixing the ideas of suppresive fire vs. being suppressed.
 You can do suppresive fire in FMA-S easily enough assuming your GM
allows you to do so.  For example...

You have a mounted LMG with spare barrels, a case of cold beer, a
dedicated secondary gunner, and many belts of ammo.

If *I* was the GM I'd allow you, as an action, to turn the gun on and
lay suppresive fire towards some distant target forming a cone from the
barrel of the gun to the target.  Any figure activating in this cone has
a chance to get splattered.  As the GM I'd fudge the firepower roll to
sort of model the fact that you arn't going for accurate fire but to lay
out enough lead to have people keep their heads down.  I'd further
modify this number based on the lay of the gun and the final target.  

Are you doing grazing fire?  Plunging fire?  Are you shooting up at the
target area?  Anyway that's all GM fudging at that point.

With that said...

If you have enough stress markers the chance of passing your activation
test becomes as close to zero as you can get.  The affect is worse than
it was in the '99 set.	

> 
> When you say you allow players to combine actions, do you mean that
you 
> allow them to combine different actions, the same, or both within an 
> activation?  For example, can they move and fire or move and move in
the 
> same activation?
>

Generally it's some action and shooting.  So you can move and
shoot...drag a wounded buddy and shoot.  You have to use common sense
though.  You can't be trying to crack a safe and lay fire at the same
time.
 
> I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but no more so than if they 
> fought two opponents on two consecutive turns.

In the '99 set combat is basically "he who rolls highest wins."  In the
'04 set you are only allowed to attack during your activation.	So your
2:1 scenario would see the outnumbered guy making two attacks....but
defending against four.  There is a small chance the defender may
actually harm the attacker but the attacker has to roll pretty poorly
for that to happen.

--
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l