On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Sam Friedman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:safriedman@gmail.com">safriedman@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div><div><div><div>- representation on the map: If I am fielding the sample t3 Marine Platoon (p. 196), how many markers do I need? One for the whole platoon? One per team? One per unit on each team?</div></div></div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>You should have seen the text BEFORE the edits. :D A platoon is composed of multiple teams. A team is a single entity on the map. A unit usually refers to the miniature used to represent the team on the map.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div><div>
<div>- action: Each unit takes an action, right? So a single marine (unit) could split off from his pals (team) to engage his arch rival (unit) one-on-one. A team could move away from the other teams in its platoon to execute a pincer maneuver. Right? As long as they're within range of their Platoon Leader's communication, they'd be able to use any of the available actions?</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Teams can move away from the platoon (subject to the platoon membership rules of course) and do as they please, yeah. A single guy is not (generally) functional at this scale, though I would totally zoom in on a PC vs Arch-Villain combat and use the personal combat rules.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>3. Movement</div><div>- "If your movement places you in (or passes through) the same zone as an enemy unit ... the moving unit ceases movement." This is different than the every zone you move through has the potential for a compel, right?</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>4. Platoon consequences</div><div>- Typical Unit Stress Tracks, p.187, says "All units have a single stress track, Morale. A platoon may expend consequences to mitigate hits ... A platoon has three Consequences to allocate and each can mitigate two shifts."</div>
<div>- But in Damage on p. 192, "A platoon can have a maximum of three consequences ..." mild [reduce by 1], medium [reduce by 2], and sever [reduce by 4].</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Ugh I thought we found all those. Either way works. We went to two-per to simplify bookeeping, but we found we were reflexively using the more complicated but familiar form in real play. I recommend p.192 as canonical.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div><div><div>- So if a unit in a platoon would take that deadly hit, its owning platoon can "give" one of its consequences to that unit? Is this consequence free-taggable on the unit or the platoon? Does it "occupy" one of the platoon's otherwise-available consequences?</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Consequences are all on the platoon and never on the unit. The text might refer to the unit, but it's the platoon where all the record-keeping stays.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>5. Artillery</div><div>- Any suggestions on how to narrate the fact that my artillery card is off the map? I have a sinking feeling my war-gaming friends would say "well hey, that should be somewhere on the map. I'd like to capture your artillery cannons and use them against you." Is there a way to model this (I'm thinking a small-scale concession of some sort?).</div>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think that fighting for control of the artillery itself is a scenario in itself, in which the cannons are props and don't do anything. Not sure how to help you with this -- they are just way off the field of battle such that if that's where the fight was, it'd be a different fight. If you want to model artillery that's close (like anti-tank guns, light artillery, and mortars) use platoons (armor or infantry) with the Indirect Fire ability and put them right on the map. Part of the reason artillery behaves as it does is because it's distant and inaccessible.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><div><div>
<div><br></div><div>Any help is appreciated.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Hope you got some Sam! Let me know how it goes.<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Brad Murray (halfjack)<br>VSCA Publishing<br>