Forum

Where are you getting all of that from? That doesn't sound like anything I remember reading.

If you look at the modifier tables it would appear heavy weapons target hexes. if you target a person you get a -2. On page 68. It also says it resolves just like small arms fire on a hit. Bottom line I think the rules on LMGs need some refinement.

Where are you getting all of that from? That doesn't sound like anything I remember reading.

Its the rules.. directly. I am just taking A+B+C=D Its just that parts A, B, and C are in different parts of the book. Thats the way I read it anyways.. and when we played it that way.. nothing appeared broken.

Different definitions of broken may apply. I guess it functionally works. But here's what you get firing MGs as heavy weapons, correct me if I'm wrong:

You use STR, unless the gun is mounted (I guess a tripod counts as mounted, does a bipod?) in which case you use AGL. (This already somewhat penalizes machine gunners as they have to really have both attributes high in order to be fully effective. But let's assume they would anyway, so it's not that big of a deal.)

You suffer a -2 penalty for firing at individuals.

You MUST aim before firing.

(Collectively, these two rules make firing any MG at people the same as quick-shotting any other weapon at people, except of course you have to spend the extra action.)

The rules don't actually say you have to target a hex. And, there don't seem to be any rules for being able to deal damage directly to the occupants of a hex, outside of blast damage. MGs obviously don't have that, so it's unclear that they can target hexes at all, or that they would do damage if they could. They could potentially deal ammo hits to occupants of the hex, but even that is unclear due to the rules of how hits are assigned from ammo hits.

I mean, it's playable to do it this way, maybe. But it's certainly also broken. MGs have as far as I can see zero advantages (other than they innately carry more ammo) and plentiful disadvantages under this system.

Is there something else I missed?

This does all point to a possible clever solution, which is to grant MGs a beaten-zone effect on a hex that works similarly to blast damage (with A, B, C, D ratings). But that's an entirely new sub-rule than what currently exists. It would have to account for both caliber and ammo usage.

That's why I continue to say MGs do target hexes and there is a missing piece in how assign hits within the hex. The inherent difference between this and explosives is that the latter damage all occupants of the hex while no one is suggesting that MGs should do the same.

I am okay with unmounted MGs (including bipods) using STR for attacks. I am okay with a weapon that isn't meant for point targets to have a penalty when targeting them. I am okay with requiring an Aim action IF it doesn't go away as a requirement for a flat roll (which I think it should).

So, I kept digging in on this and noticed something, although what I said worked out ok in my previous post.. I think now that I missed something crucial. Reading the rules and noticed something. On pg xx, it says LMGs, GPMGs and Hvy hmgs USE the hvy weapon skill, it does not say, they ARE Hvy Weapons themselves. .. on pg xx, it gives a very specific list of what are HVY weapons.. The MGs, are not on the list, therefore do not use the hvy weapons modifiers.. it uses the standard ranged modifiers list. This clears up the issue about the modifers, and makes things work smooth. Well at least to me it does! So, it could just be a situation on a poorly worded rule.. maybe?

I am okay with unmounted MGs (including bipods) using STR for attacks. I am okay with a weapon that isn't meant for point targets to have a penalty when targeting them. I am okay with requiring an Aim action IF it doesn't go away as a requirement for a flat roll (which I think it should).

WW2 Bren Guns (still in use with some TAVR units in the period, perhaps? certainly ISTR they were in the 1980's) were used in single shot mode as sort of sniper rifles, or so I read about Australian troops in the Western Desert. Of course, the Bren is really more an Automatic Rifle than a LMG.

ISTR that BARs could be similarly used ... would they have still been in reserve in the USA?

As an aside, I don't know if anyone noticed in the coverage of the Syrian Civil War, but early on in the piece some of the Rebels took a Syrian Government Arsenal - which stocked *thousands* MP-44's (i.e. late war GERMAN Automatic Rifles) ... and ammo for them (presumably 7.92mm Kurz which was what they were originally chambered for).

This ammo could have been quite old and still good, I remember a response from someone on an old TW2000 board who explained that military ammo was varnished and vastly less subject to environmental degradation than commercial rounds.

I know the Australian Army had virtually (or completely) new Brens and Vickers HMGs in stockpiles (along with *millions* of SMLE Rifles) until the mid to late 80's, though I believe in the real world they were all scrapped gradually in the 90's ... I presume other countries had the same sort of obsolete weapon stockpiles (except the US, of course, where they were all probably sold off to the civilian market!)

Phil McGregor

I own one of those SMLEs.

The Bren was used as a sniper weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjdBfpLIiA Siege of Jadotville - 3.00 onwards.

But it certainly wasn't the primary role of SAWs or MGs, and it comes down to how good the sights are if you attempt to fire single shots from such a weapon.

I own one of those SMLEs.

The Bren was used as a sniper weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjdBfpLIiA Siege of Jadotville - 3.00 onwards.

But it certainly wasn't the primary role of SAWs or MGs, and it comes down to how good the sights are if you attempt to fire single shots from such a weapon.

Great movie! I forgot the bit in question, and, of course, I expect both the Bren and the BAR had graduated sights at least as accurate as the rifles of the period, given the doctrine behind them.

Phil McGregor