06-15-2014, 05:20 AM | #1 |
Former Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
8.04 Resolving an overrun attack (p. 18). Should say “When an overrun takes place, all attacking units which expended movement to participate in the overrun, and all defending units in the hex, are removed to a spot beside the board” instead of “all units in that hex (on both sides) are removed”.
---------------- The above is for the proposed Errata v 1.01 (the current posted draft is the Errata v 1.0). The new rule makes the overrun sequence consistent with the basic principle that overrunning units must actually, well, overrun by spending MP: - Currently, a unit can expend 1 MP to overrun a building a second time (11.04.2) - 11.04.2, 6.02 and 6.06 all strongly imply the principle that you can spend 1 MP, stay in the hex, and overrun a second time (this is only useful against buildings and helpless targets such as weaponless Ogres, since anything else would have been dead from the first overrun). This principle is made explicit in the Errata v 1.0 changes to 8.08 - Under the pre-errata (6.0/1.0 Sixth Edition) rules, there was a cheesy overrun exploit. Let's say you want to destroy a SP40 building which is sitting in a town, and you have 3 squads within two hex movement range (i.e. all the squads can just reach the hex). The exploit is to send in the squads one at a time:
The exploit works because existing attacking units in the overrun hex get to participate in a subsequent overrun for free, when another attacking unit enters the hex. With the proposed fix, the 3 squads always do 24 damage to the building, whether you send them all in together, or one at a time. Feedback or thoughts? Good change or no? |
06-15-2014, 06:19 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston SC, USA
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Hmm...
When you have to refer to three other rules to make your meaning clear, you might have a problem. The truth is that the text change you propose was too subtle at first for me to catch the implications you were driving at. Without your example it would've gone straight over my head -- and I suspect several others. You're right Talorien, but it's too lawyer-ish. It might not be kosher, but I'd actually prefer a blunt "8.04.1: ...but no you minmax munchkins, you cannot piecemeal units to a fight to exploit the '2 free shots' rule against stuff that can't shoot back. Commit your men to a fight or don't. You're supposed to be a General, not a rules-lawyer, so act like one." Or failing that, your example of what we can't do should be included so gamers know exactly what you're getting on about. Stop trying to be subtle about this stuff. Say what you got to say. Keep it simple. Be blunt. |
06-16-2014, 12:58 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
2 things:
1) I agree with Francisco - I'm not sure the best way to word it, but simply state "Units must expend at least 1MP to participate in an overrun." 2) Exception to the above: Armed buildings should always participate. You've made that clear for lasers in the errata/FAQ you posted, but it's relevant to this proposal as well. But I agree with the concept 100%.
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
06-16-2014, 03:19 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minnesota
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Suggested wording:
8.04 Resolving an overrun attack (p. 18). Should say “When an overrun takes place, all buildings, defending units, and attacking units (excluding attackers who did not expend MP to enter the overrun) in the hex, are removed to a spot beside the board” instead of “all units in that hex (on both sides) are removed”. |
06-16-2014, 04:11 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Can immobilized/immobile units participate in an overrun (as attackers)? Based on the FAQ for 12 (lasers), I would think they should be able to participate but not initiate.
If immobilized/immobile units can participate in an overrun (as attackers), how many overruns may they participate in during a single movement phase? Player turn? What about lasers? Must immobilized/immobile units participate in an overrun (as attackers) if another unit initiates an overrun in their hex? Lasers? Depending on the answers, I'd suggest language like "...all attacking units that expended MP to enter the overrun, any immobile attacking units or buildings (including lasers) that chose to enter the overrun, and all defending units in the hex...". |
06-16-2014, 05:22 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston SC, USA
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
8.04.1 To resolve an overrun attack, the attacker and defender divide their units in the hex into two piles each: Stuff-That-Can-Shoot-Back and Stuff-That-Can't.
8.04.2 The two STCSB piles proceed to murder each other as per. 8.04.3 If anything (like a gun-stripped Ogre) moves from one pile to the other over the course of the battle, the victorious/surviving enemy STCSB pile (if any) gets two rounds of curb-stomp fire -- against that/those units only. 8.04.4 The only way to get at the Stuff-That-Can't is to wipe out any/all STCSB units and then spend a Movement Point to recommit to the overrun, at which point each unit gets two fire-turns per MP expended to crush its helpless foes. 8.04.5 Yes, this means that even one squad of infantry can "meat shield" for a whole overrun. This works both for that strategic building the defender is trying to protect as it does for that convoy of hospital trucks the attacker was hoping to screen. 8.04.6 To handle a meat shield, remember 8.08: you don't have to commit everything all at once to the same overrun. Use only what is needed so the rest can concentrate on the helpless targets (assuming those are your real objective) in a follow-up overrun. Just don't low-ball your original attack... I'm not sure if I've covered all the edge-cases like water/bridges, minefields, cruise missiles, and artillery support, but I'm pretty happy with the general clarity. :) Last edited by FJCestero; 06-16-2014 at 06:45 PM. |
06-17-2014, 07:38 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
I'm of 2 minds regarding immobile units participating in overruns.
On the one hand, if Lasers (and presumably other armed buildings) can participate, immobile units should be able to as well. On the other hand, buildings are big targets, and thus presumably aren't so much entering the overrun as they are impossible to keep out. Immobile units are smaller and thus more likely to be out of scope. Then again, the chances of an immobile unit being in a hex at the start of an overrun is very small. First of all, the (now) defenders must have overrun the (now) attackers the turn previously and somehow survived. This means that either the (now) defender or the immobile (now) attacker is an Ogre that ran out of weapons (might still have MRs left and/or AP with no targets), as in any other situation one side must die. The only way a HWZ/stuck (S)HVY/MHWZ could be (now) attacking in an overrun situation is if they survived an overrun by Ogre and 'declawed' it, something I find rather unlikely. Perhaps the best solution is to ignore immobile non-Ogre units in the official rules, and make it a FAQ if anyone can come up with a likely situation for it to even be possible (I suppose if an Ogre overran another Ogre + HWZ, but you'd think the Ogre would vape the HWZ first thing, either by direct fire or ramming). And immobile Ogres should probably not be able to participate in overruns as attackers, even if they have weapons left. My $0.02...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
06-17-2014, 08:05 AM | #8 | |
Former Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Quote:
Thus, immobile attacking units which happen to be in the hex never participate in overruns. Lasers on the attacking side no longer participate in overruns. This is actually one of the cases (along with the infantry exploit example) pushing the proposal of the new rule in the original post in this thread. Basically, the automatic triggering of in-hex attacking units to participate was creating a host of unintended problems. |
|
06-17-2014, 12:30 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minnesota
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Quote:
I favor letting turrets overrun in that situation. If you're going to run up to an armed emplacement you should suffer. But it seems TPTB have ruled otherwise. |
|
06-17-2014, 09:12 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Proposed Official Errata to Overruns
Quote:
Add to the proposed rule change the following: Immobile units (that is, M0 units/buildings and STUCK units only) may participate as an attacker in one overrun per turn. It makes sense that (e.g.) a fencer turret or a laser can be part of an overrun, but limiting it to once per turn closes the loophole in a logical manner that's not too hard to implement (keep track mentally, or use a chit to indicate that it's participated in an overrun this turn).
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|