Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Board and Card Games > Ogre and G.E.V.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-24-2012, 06:59 PM   #21
Bowser
 
Bowser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Garden City, KS
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

I still stand by what I said: I LIKE the modified version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolanus View Post
I do think the clarification that a GEV can not transfer the bonus between road and water is important (there are enough places where there is a road hex next to a water hex).
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolanus View Post
Perhaps remove the ending "or a smooth beach," since there is no clear definition of what a beach is, and it can just as easily be handled by a ramp. I don't see being able to logically connect a road to water with a beach...
I can logically see it. There are lots of "beach-side" roads that could be taken advantage of by a force of GEVs roaring in off the water of a large lake or ocean. This could be an advantage in scenarios where reinforcements come in from a map edge that is water: Get them GEVs to the combat zone quickly!!

And as far as the definition of what a beach is, it is what the scenario's designer decides it is. Just like any ramp. That's the beauty of it: If the designer forgets to indicate it, it ain't there no matter what you think the terrain looks like "for real".

But as I've said before, what I really like is that it takes a situation that might or might not be implicit and explicitly states what a scenario's designer could or could not do. Anything that removes ambiguity means that's one less "house rule" that someone will have to juggle.

[I'm not disparaging your efforts, they are well argued. And Steve seemed to lean in your direction. I simply disagree, but don't read into my reply "strongly" disagree. I can live with it either way. :) ]
__________________
S+++ O1() O2+ G+++ S++ RP++ OM() B++ GO() O6e() PO+++ HR/NU- MK3() MK5-- CM-- W() KS+++
based on Michael Powers' message in 2001/gevfeb23.txt
Bowser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 07:16 PM   #22
D351
 
D351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
A GEV which starts its turn on either road or water, and spends the entire movement phase on that road or water, may move one extra hex along that road or water.
It seems to me that all of these transferability issues are inherently resolved by the use of the word "that" in this line, although it might need to read "road, rail, or water". Either way, I think the rule's already clear about this.

As for the beach thing, it sounds like it either needs to be scenario-specific or clarified through a system of map-marking. What I'd be more interested in is whether a direct intersection of road and rail would count as one continuous road movement. Also, I'm curious as to whether there will be terrain markers for ramps (I've never played), because, if not, it's going to be confusing to keep track by hex number. And if there are markers, then will there be enough to mark an entire beach front? Otherwise, there needs to be some form of map-based clarification.
D351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 08:13 PM   #23
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post
I can logically see it. There are lots of "beach-side" roads that could be taken advantage of by a force of GEVs roaring in off the water of a large lake or ocean. This could be an advantage in scenarios where reinforcements come in from a map edge that is water: Get them GEVs to the combat zone quickly!!

And as far as the definition of what a beach is, it is what the scenario's designer decides it is. Just like any ramp. That's the beauty of it: If the designer forgets to indicate it, it ain't there no matter what you think the terrain looks like "for real".

But as I've said before, what I really like is that it takes a situation that might or might not be implicit and explicitly states what a scenario's designer could or could not do. Anything that removes ambiguity means that's one less "house rule" that someone will have to juggle.

[I'm not disparaging your efforts, they are well argued. And Steve seemed to lean in your direction. I simply disagree, but don't read into my reply "strongly" disagree. I can live with it either way. :) ]
Actually, I can see your point regarding beaches, but I still don't think they need to be explicitly called out. "Ramp" as a generic term would suffice, since a beach could be a ramp just as much as a boat slip is. The distinction, therefore, is man-made vs natural. In that case, it would be easy enough to leave it to the scenario to describe what type of ramp it actually is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
It seems to me that all of these transferability issues are inherently resolved by the use of the word "that" in this line, although it might need to read "road, rail, or water". Either way, I think the rule's already clear about this.
I will agree that it is clear, but don't forget that this whole discussion started because of the errata regarding ramps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
As for the beach thing, it sounds like it either needs to be scenario-specific or clarified through a system of map-marking.
If it's included at all, it would most likely be scenario-specific, which is exactly what we are discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
What I'd be more interested in is whether a direct intersection of road and rail would count as one continuous road movement.
Not implicitly. These hexes are 1.5km across. There's no reason to assume they are close enough together for any kind of transference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
Also, I'm curious as to whether there will be terrain markers for ramps (I've never played), because, if not, it's going to be confusing to keep track by hex number. And if there are markers, then will there be enough to mark an entire beach front? Otherwise, there needs to be some form of map-based clarification.
It's not uncommon for scenarios to designate specific characteristics regarding the state of a particular hex, so there is a fairly well established precedent for simply saying "hex so-and-so is a ramp/rubble/BBQ joint"

I think the only reason to change the current draft rules would be if Steve feels that there is sufficient cause to explicitly continue to include the usage of ramps (ie, lay the groundwork to officially allow them in scenarios). The rule as it stands, disallows movement transference.

Now on a related topic... what about the rules for other units? Can a HVY or an Ogre use a rail as a road (ie, GEVs using the rail as a road is new)?
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 08:21 PM   #24
D351
 
D351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolanus View Post
Not implicitly. These hexes are 1.5km across. There's no reason to assume they are close enough together for any kind of transference.
I'm talking about if the lines on the map directly connect or cross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolanus View Post
It's not uncommon for scenarios to designate specific characteristics regarding the state of a particular hex, so there is a fairly well established precedent for simply saying "hex so-and-so is a ramp/rubble/BBQ joint"
If that's the case, I'm probably going to go get some flat marbles for keeping track special hexes (probably the sanity from Cthulhu Dice). Otherwise, I'm very likely to lose track of where things are.
D351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2012, 08:33 PM   #25
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
I'm talking about if the lines on the map directly connect or cross.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I think that is a prime example of where transference of movement would be applicable (more so than road/water)

Quote:
Originally Posted by D351 View Post
If that's the case, I'm probably going to go get some flat marbles for keeping track special hexes (probably the sanity from Cthulhu Dice). Otherwise, I'm very likely to lose track of where things are.
It's usually not that bad, but think about things like mine tracking, designated turns for reinforcements, or when the train enters the map. Tracking things on paper does tend to happen from time to time.

random counter markers is not a bad idea, though. I tend to use other chits that aren't being used to accomplish the same goal.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 06:09 AM   #26
D351
 
D351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Negaunee, MI
Default Re: G.E.V. Revision History (and how it relates to Ogre 6e)

Quote:
Originally Posted by coriolanus View Post
It's usually not that bad, but think about things like mine tracking, designated turns for reinforcements, or when the train enters the map. Tracking things on paper does tend to happen from time to time.
IDK, I'll see when I finally get to play.
D351 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
editions, gev, revisions

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.