Prev: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Re: [GZG] theoretical rules schedule? (was Re: And now for something completely different...)

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:43:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] theoretical rules schedule? (was Re: And now for something completely different...)

>I have to ask this, as I'm not on the playtest list - what does 
>SG:AC stand for?

I posted this to the main list on Friday - however it was under a 
different thread heading, so you may have missed it; hope no-one 
minds me posting it again:

>2008/7/11 Damond Walker <<>>:
>What is SG:AC?
>I think SG:AC är Stargrunt:Assault Company. Rules written for 15mm

Yes, exactly that. Something that I'm working on (with feedback from 
the playtest group) to fit in between SGII and DSII, designed for 
reinforced-company-level forces. Still in early alpha form at the 
moment with a number of major decisions still to be made about rule 
mechanics, but I hope it will progress to a reasonably complete 
playtestable beta version before TOO long.

I haven't said much about it outside the playtest group because it's 
still at a very early stage - it's not exactly secret, but much may 
change before it's in any shape for even a limited playtest release, 
so there hasn't been a lot to tell you yet.

What I CAN say with reasonable certainty is:

It will be called STARGRUNT: ASSAULT COMPANY, to keep the link to 
SGII on which a lot of it is based. Hence SG:AC, with or without the 

It is designed primarily for 15mm figures and vehicles, with infantry 
based as multi-figure stands (typically 3-5 man fireteam stands, 
though 2-man teams and full squad stands will also feature depending 
on organisation and tech level) and vehicles based individually.
Basing size and shape is non-critical, so those of you with 
single-based figures for SGII needn't worry - you can just blu-tack 
them to a card fireteam base, or even just move a little clump of 
them around as a single element. Using 10mm, 6mm etc. with it should 
not be a problem.

Typical forces at medium tech levels will be Company sized - three or 
four platoons plus maybe some supporting units. Lower tech forces may 
be larger, and higher-tech ones much smaller than this. Tech level 
differences will feature particularly strongly, with a platoon-sized 
force of very high-tech troops being able to take on a couple of 
companies or more of low-tech in what we hope will be a reasonable 
game matchup.

The game mechanics will be broadly similar to both SGII and DSII in 
many ways (still the FMA system at the core of it), but we WILL be 
changing things where we feel there is better way of doing them. 
While we will try to keep as much overall consistency between the 
games as practical, the overall goal is to make SG:AC as good as we 

Yes, it's an unashamed and blatantly commercial attempt to get you 
all to buy lots of our lovely 15mm figures and vehicles. However it 
will remain as broadly generic as possible so that you can use your 
own setting if you wish, it won't be specifically tied to just the 

No, I don't know when it will be ready for release, or in what format 
it will be published, but when something is ready you will all be 
among the first to know!  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

>>  Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:17:30 +0100
>>  To:
>>  From:
>>  Subject: Re: [GZG] theoretical rules schedule? (was Re: And now 
>>for something completely different...)
>>  >Ground Zero Games <> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> OK, I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm going to answer it
>>  >> seriously! ;-)
>>  >>
>>  >> BDS will not happen in it's originally planned form. As you know,
>>  >> was intended to be a supplement for SGII, but it just got
>>  >> by events and other projects. However, the name is too good not
>>  >> use - so it may eventually see the light as a supplement for
>>  >> instead.... :-)
>>  >
>>  >Heh, thanks for the reply. It was meant as a joke. But, since we've
>>  >this far, let's keep the ball rolling: what rules-projects are
being worked
>>  >on, what rules-projects are back-burnered for now, and which
>  > >projects are no longer happening, for one reason or another?
>>  SG:AC and FT3 are developing, slowly. FMAS is on a back burner for
>>  now but could be pulled forward if I get a particular burst of
>>  enthusiasm for it. DS3 is in the hands of its own development team
>>  (Oerjan, Indy and John L) who are tinkering about with it as time
>>  allows. BDS, see above. ;-)
>>  NO schedules or time promises on anything, because I've learnt the
>>  hard way that they never happen. Like we did with FT Light recently,
>>  what I'm doing with stuff now is announcing it WHEN IT IS READY (for
>>  playtesting or actual publication, as appropriate) and not before!
>>  Jon (GZG)
>>  >
>>  >-p.
>>  >
>>  >_______________________________________________
>>  >Gzg-l mailing list
>>  >
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>Get Hotmail on your Mobile! 
><>Try it Now!
>Gzg-l mailing list

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?