Comments on 6-1 Rules

[gamerrev]

Originally Posted by KevinR

Later? No, now:

I knew I had seen it somewhere...

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by gamerrev

I knew I had seen it somewhere...

I think that discussion of infantry types on the KS sheets also appeared in the next-to-last surrrrrrvey (maybe Update #40), but I forgot to print off a copy of the questions.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Buzzardo

"Emplace" has the specific connotation of something that requires some construction to put in place. So one can emplace a laser tower or a howitzer, whereas one might place one's troops along the ridge line.

English is a weird language, which is why I love it. :)

While I don't disagree, "emplace" is also used with the specific connotation of building additional defenses around something. c.f. "Emplaced HWZ w/ Point Defense" in Hammer & Anvil. Hence my quibble :)

I'd feel much better with "emplace" if the lasers were more strongly armored or otherwise defended better than a "standard" building. But the standard 20SP laser to me seems to be a standard building (yes, I know it's armored, but it doesn't seem to be any stronger than any other building place on an Ogre battlefield...).

That brings up something I thought of a few days ago - an Ogre overrunning a building will kill almost anything instantly - MB is 4, x2 for overrun, x4 for building damage in an overrun = 32 points of damage per hit. Thus even a Mark I can destroy anything up to 60SP with a single overrun. It's probably 100% reasonable, but it's still a little startling...

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by offsides

That brings up something I thought of a few days ago - an Ogre overrunning a building will kill almost anything instantly - MB is 4, x2 for overrun, x4 for building damage in an overrun = 32 points of damage per hit. Thus even a Mark I can destroy anything up to 60SP with a single overrun. It's probably 100% reasonable, but it's still a little startling...

I'm not sure where you are getting the x2 from. Based on 11.04.2, I think that it is only weapon x4 (so MB is 16), but that you can attack twice in an overrun getting to 32 SP per MB per overrun. Still a lot.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by KevinR

I'm not sure where you are getting the x2 from. Based on 11.04.2, I think that it is only weapon x4 (so MB is 16), but that you can attack twice in an overrun getting to 32 SP per MB per overrun. Still a lot.

All Ogre weapons are doubled in Overruns. All damage to buildings is x4 in overruns. Thus an MB is 32, a SB is 24, and a MSL is 48 against buildings.

Actually, that brings up a good question - can Ogre AP damage buildings? I'm inclined to say no, but buildings don't have a defense strength, so I can see that being questioned if it isn't explicitly specified...

[JLV]

Here's my cut:

2.03: The following statement seemingly contradicts 2.03.2: "...but units on the road/railroad ignore all movement penalties for terrain." 2.03.2 states: "GEVs and infantry treat railroads as roads." Suggest rephrasing 2.03 to read: "...but units moving along the road/railroad ignore all movement penalties for terrain, however only GEVs and Infantry may receive the road bonus for moving along a railroad (see case 2.03.2)." Rationale: Clarifies intent of the rule.

4.00: Sequence of play suggestions previously mentioned in this thread are right on. They clarify your intent and take into account spillover and shockwave effects which current phrasing neglects to provide for.

5.01: Suggest changing the last sentence in paragraph one to read: "Movement points may not be accumulated from turn to turn or transferred to another unit." Rationale: A common mistake made by first-time players.

6.07.1: While it is implied in this rule, it is never actually stated that a Superheavy Tank is NOT automatically destroyed when it rams an Ogre. Recommend rephrasing the rule to read; "Exception: a Superheavy is not automatically destroyed when ramming an Ogre. See case 6.07.3." Rationale: Clarity and eliminates redundancy.

6.07.3: This rule is redundant with the exception in 6.07.1. Recommend rephrasing the exception in 6.07.1 as noted above and leaving this rule intact. Rationale: Eliminates redundancy.

8.00: I have a problem with Section 8.0, but I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. In the rules you state categorically several times (in section 8.00 and in section 6.00) that one either uses Ramming or Overrun, but never both, but then we go into great detail in section 8.05.2 and 8.05.3 on how to Ram in an Overrun. I think the easiest fix is to simply change the "never use both" statement to something along the lines of "Players may either use rule section 6.0 Ramming, or rule section 8.0 Overrun, but not both at the same time. They are mutually exclusive." Rationale: This avoids the confusion likely to be generated when new Players are told you can't Ram AND Overrun, and then are told exactly how to do just that.

9.03: The final sentence is unclear; recommend rephrasing to read: "If an attack destroys the front of a moving train, the whole train is destroyed; remove the counters representing that train from the map. If another train subsequently enters the map, the removed counters may be returned to play, representing the new train." Rationale: Clarity.

9.04: Recommend adding a sentence to read: "Regardless of how the train is Overrun, if the train is destroyed, the rail hex is also considered destroyed." Rationale: Clarity.

9.07: This section begs two questions. First, can Hovertrucks and/or Trucks be brought in on the train? And second, do Infantry riding in GEV-PCs, Hovertrucks and/or Trucks get to "freely leave the train?" Recommend rephrasing the third sentence to read as follows: "If GEV-PCs, Hovertrucks or Trucks are carried, the Size of any infantry riding them does not count." Recommend rephrasing the fourth sentence to read: "Infantry may fire from the train unless they are mounted on GEV-PCs, Hovertrucks or Trucks within the train." Finally, recommend rephrasing the sixth sentence to read: "Infantry, including any infantry riding in GEV-PCs, Hovertrucks or Trucks, may leave the train freely at the beginning of any turn." Rationale: Clarity.

Effects of Missile Explosion Table: This table is still hosed up. You have six possible results across the top, ranging from "X" to "NE," however none of the listed units have more than five results accounted for, meaning, as near as I can tell, that the "X" result is completely unnecessary. Recommend removing this table from the rules and instead printing it on the Player Aid sheets and making sure it has enough room so that the text does not overlap the actual table fields. Rationale: Clarity.

11.04.3: This section states that GEVs, GEV-PCs and Hovertrucks can only damage a building by ramming it at full speed, but it never specifies the level of damage done, and there are special rules for GEVs in ramming attacks in section 6.00. Recommend specifying whether the building undergoes an attack with 4 strength points, 8 strength points or 16 strength points when rammed by a GEV type unit. Rationale: Clarity and consistency.

11.04.3 again: This section specifies that other units are too small to do damage, but given that GEVs are treated as a special case, I recommend that the last sentence be rewritten as: "Other units (including LGEVs) are too slow, or too light, to affect a building by ramming." Rationale: Clarity.

13.01.3: The second sentence states; "Place a Road Cut Marker." Since nowhere else is a "Road Cut" marker mentioned, I assume there isn't one. Recommend replacing the second sentence with the following: "Place an overlay showing the same terrain type, covering the road." Rationale: Accuracy.

Scenario Book: Numerous layout issues and pagination issues which I assume you are aware of and can't fix yet pending further information from the printer.

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by offsides

All Ogre weapons are doubled in Overruns. All damage to buildings is x4 in overruns. Thus an MB is 32, a SB is 24, and a MSL is 48 against buildings.

Actually, that brings up a good question - can Ogre AP damage buildings? I'm inclined to say no, but buildings don't have a defense strength, so I can see that being questioned if it isn't explicitly specified...

I think that you're misinterpreting overrun damage, so this probably is a good discussion to have. Let's quote the relevant rules:

11.04.1 Regular attacks.AP weapons have no effect on buildings, but all other weapons automatically hit if fired at a building within range. Any weapon does damage equal to twice its attack strength.
...
If a building is in town or forest, attacks are halved to normal attack strength.

11.04.2 Overrun attacks. When a building is attacked in an overrun – i.e., when the attackers are in the same hex as the building – damage is doubled: each attack does damage equal to four times the weapon’s attack strength.
...
If a building in a town or forest is overrun, damage is doubled for overrun and halved for terrain, so the net effect is that damage is twice the weapon’s attack strength.

(Note that your AP question is answered in 11.04.1.)

Per 11.04.1, normal combat damage from a weapon is "twice its attack strength" in SPs.
In terrain, that is halved to "normal attack strength".
I omitted an example that MB causes 8 SP damage in clear but 4 SP damage in terrain.

Per 11.04.2, overrun combat damage is "four times the weapon's attack strength".
In terrain, that is halved to "twice the weapon's attack strength".

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Macunaima

JLV: you've mentioned you have real life military experience. Given what you know of combat, do you SERIOUSLY envision ogres and superheavies rushing around the battlefield at 70 KPH in billiards-table straight lines?

I mean, you weant to talk nonsense? THAT, my friend, is nonsense.

Part of the problem here is that you make assumptions about time, space and speed, and then make the further assumption that your previous assumptions are now proven by the simple fact you chose to write them down.

I don't want to get into a ******* match with you, so I'm just going to say; "Physics; it's more than just a good idea -- it's the LAW!"

If you think the time/movement allowance relationships are all skewed, and you want to change them in your world, you go right ahead and do that. And if variable, non-newtonian time lines work for you (Hey! You should check out Ogrethulhu!), that's just great too. But they don't work for me, and I don't think we should change the rules for everyone to conform to your world-view just because it's your world-view.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Steve said that fundamental changes were out; he's looking for clarity, spelling and grammar sorts of things this time around. I recommend you start a separate thread regarding non-Newtonian physics for this topic.

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by JLV

Effects of Missile Explosion Table: This table is still hosed up. You have six possible results across the top, ranging from "X" to "NE," however none of the listed units have more than five results accounted for, meaning, as near as I can tell, that the "X" result is completely unnecessary. Recommend removing this table from the rules and instead printing it on the Player Aid sheets and making sure it has enough room so that the text does not overlap the actual table fields. Rationale: Clarity.

The first post sounded to me like Steve knew this and it would be fixed in layout.

The problem here is that the table is simply too wide for the column, and now is in the right-hand column (so the overflow just disappears). In the 5/18 draft it was in the left-hand column, and the excess info overprinted the right-hand column. At that point, there was enough data to make six figures per line, completing the table.

(Overflow was 2 figures for D0, 1 for D1, 1 for D2, 3 for D3, 1 for Infantry, 1 for Town, 2 for Road, 2 for Ogre, 2 for <20SP, 1 for 20-50SP, 1 for >50SP.)

That said:
Error: The "0" range in the D3+ row should be changed to "-", to avoid confusion. (Everything at 0 range is destroyed.)

[JLV]

Originally Posted by KevinR

The first post sounded to me like Steve knew this and it would be fixed in layout.

Yeah, maybe, but I figure he asked for our review, so I reviewed everything I saw. If he's already aware, he'll discount the comment. If not, I just saved the rules. ;-)