Another Rulebook Poll

[Steve Jackson]

Okay, we can take it as established that the new rulebook won't be the "flip" type. (Aww! I liked it! But then, I liked Ace Doubles, too.) It's running about 3 to 1 against.

That raises a new question. Several of you have suggested that the rules be consolidated. That's doable. Let's talk about it. The obvious options are:

- Don't consolidate. Leave them as they are.

- Do consolidate them, using the "case system" of numbered paragraphs. Rewording would be kept to the minimum necessary to incorporate the G.E.V. material into the Ogre rules.

- Consolidate and totally rewrite them, along the lines of the first Deluxe Ogre. The case system would be dropped in favor of headings and subheadings.

Now obviously changing the rules will be more work than leaving them alone. But please ignore that and simply vote for the one you'd choose to buy if we were offering all three at the same price. In other words . . . give us the data about what you would prefer, and let us make the business (and artistic!) decision about what to do with that data.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

I'd prefer option 2. I like the case system, it made it easy to refer to rules. But if possible, a consolidated rule set would really be ideal. I could live with option 3, but the case system was just handy.

[tomc]

I really like the numbered rules for games like OGRE. It makes them easy to talk about in forums and such. Consolidating OGRE and GEV doesn't matter much to me, as I've always considered the OGRE rules as a "special case" scenario with tweaked rules for game balance, while the GEV rules represent how the world really works.

[Toltrin]

I would like to know the official place to find out what the size stat means when it is applied to a unit? I mean What is the SIZE of the Command Post? The Radar Station , the Jamming Station, the small and large bridge? Even the Revetments? Is there a place I can go to find the sizes of everything in the OGRE universe? I am building an alternative rule set for other interesting units and size would be an interesting stat to throw in the mix for situations where attack and defense are just not enough...
Forgive me if I put this in the wrong post location.
Dave

[Jeffr0]

I also like the "Old School" Meta-gaming type rules numbering. Easy to look up and reference specific rules.

I'm surprised at the push to integrate Ogre and GEV rules, though. I still think of them as really being different games. Ogre style ramming vs GEV over-runs, totally different terrain rules, etc.

In terms of playability, accessability, balance, and depth, these mini-games are better than anything else out there. I guess I fear for any of those strong points suffering as a result of the rules integration.

[FireHorse]

I voted for Option 2, because I play Ogre/GEV as a combined game anyway -- that is, I play GEV with Ogres. (Actually, since I also use the units introduced in Shockwave and Battlefields, I guess I'm almost playing Ogre Miniatures even when I'm using chits.)

Besides, quite a lot of the GEV rules is just a repetition of what's already in Ogre, yes? Well, it's a waste of space to print the same rules twice, isn't it? So by all means combine them.

However, as a caveat: I can understand the rationale behind treating Ogre and GEV as items that are semi-distinct from one another -- for the sake of tradition, if nothing else -- so I wouldn't mind if the manner in which they were "combined" makes note of their separate origins.

Uhhh, if you know what I mean.

That is… for example, Section 5 of the combined rules would still be Movement, and would contain all of the rules currently appearing in both Ogre and GEV, reordered and renumbered as necessary; and wherever the Ogre rules and the GEV rules are identical, no extra notation would be made.

But wherever Ogre and GEV contradict each other (like 5.02, Stacking) list both variants, and simply make note of their origins: 5.02, Stacking; 5.02(A), Ogre Rule; 5.02(B), GEV Rule; 5.02(B)1, Combining Infantry; etc..

Or something like that. That way we get them "combined," but they're still easily separable -- just in case anyone wants to do that, for whatever reason.

[nukesnipe]

Hi,

I voted for Option 2. Ogre is a subset of GEV (or GEV is a superset of Ogre); it makes sense to combine the rules and perhaps add an appendix that identifies the changes to the combined rules that would allow one to play the original Ogre rules.

I hope that made sense.... :-}

[ShotGun_Jolly]

I have to agree with Firehorse. Even having never owned the game, nore played it.

They way he descirbed it, from my point of view would be the best way for someone like myself to take the rules and read it, and then being able to easilly see what rules are not needed if i was just using "Ogre" or just using "GEV" or when I was good enough with the rules, both.


So, from a my point of view, and knowing how I would best understand rulesets, I would choose option two as well.

I am very use to the "Squad Leader" style rule books, and that rule numbering system I really like.

Originally Posted by FireHorse

But wherever Ogre and GEV contradict each other (like 5.02, Stacking) list both variants, and simply make note of their origins: 5.02, Stacking; 5.02(A), Ogre Rule; 5.02(B), GEV Rule; 5.02(B)1, Combining Infantry; etc..

This would be wonderful from my view point!

[Andrew Hackard]

I think the case numbering has to go.

There's no point in doing a new version of OGRE if it's only going to sell to people who already know and love the game. You want to attract NEW gamers, which means you need to remove any barriers that might convince them not to buy. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any NEW games that use case numbering in their rules, so using it might well be a turn-off for people who aren't sure what to make of it.

OTOH, I could be completely wrong. I think it warrants some market research in places other than here, among people who are already familiar with OGRE, because that's not the market you have to worry about penetrating.

[piningforthefjords]

I also like #2, for the reasons listed above. And I also play "Ogre Miniatures with chits" - GEV with Ogres, Shockwave & Battlefields rules. I really want to play a consolidated version (instead of getting the Dopp ramming damage from OM to use in the hex game,etc).

But I think there has to be two board games.

My concern is that many new players to the game start with Ogre. There has just got to be a basic, well-balanced introductory game. Who can forget your first thrills of Ogre, where the battle goes down to the last hex. The problem is that basic Ogre loses something when you have overruns and stacking. You can't water down the crush the CP experience!

The game that most closely resembles this now is Deluxe Ogre.

Once that gets old and you want more, then there's the GEV + supplements game (now is the time for the LAST WAR title!). Throw in the maps, units, scenarios, overruns, Ogre variants, LADs, lasers, cruise missles, etc etc. Clear up one of the biggest differences between OM and hex - scrap the armor units and use point costs for the units.

Last, I also like the numbered rules system. It makes it easy to find the relevant passage during PBeM games.

~ my 2 cents ~