Rulebook PDF Posted

[edelder]

This may be more appropriate for a FAQ and not the rulebook but I'll throw it in anyway.

13.02.1
River bridges are considered to be BPC-armored, and are not
affected by anything except direct attacks. Exception: An attack on
a unit on the center hex of the bridge gives an automatic, separate
attack, of the same strength, on the bridge itself.

Makes Sense. It's like spillover fire against an inanimate target or town. What about overrun attacks against units on the bridge though? Should more precise fire have such a great effect when the bridge is BPC armored?

Overall I'm loving it. Ogre was the first hobby game I played ... back in 1979.

[FJCestero]

It may just be me, but I'd move 5.11.2 ("Combat involving infantry riding vehicles") to the Combat section. Something that explicitly and clearly spells out what happens to infantry riding GEV-PCs and other vehicles is needed there.

Currently all we have is 7.12.2 "Units affected by spillover fire" which doesn't raise any mental flags since infantry aboard GEV-PCs and the like are covered by the "roll one die and apply results at separate odds" rule (which is a game mechanism not mentioned anywhere in the Combat section!). It isn't until you scan the rest of Combat looking for something relevant to GEV-PCs that you drill down 7.12.2 and get "...separate spillover fire is not calculated for a tank and the infantry riding it (Section 5.11)" and follow the link because you've got nothing else to go on that you find the rules you're looking for under Movement three pages back. It's a bit unwieldy. /soapbox.

Also, in the interest of clarity, all differences between infantry riding trucks, dedicated transport like GEV-PCs, or just hitchhiking aboard a passing heavy, should be consolidated in a table or something. The current rules don't make these easy to find. I like how the CRT reference page spells out the difference between spillover fire and overrun combat, and the new terrain tables are VERY nice. Kudos to whomever, we need more of this level of clarity.

Next, make it clear that a super doing the splits is 3+3, not 4+2 or 5+1 as you wish. If we're going through the trouble of clarifying that tread units are not expended with movement...

OK, that's about it. Sorry if I'm being a bother.
--Francisco

[wjdecker]

Possibly overly pedantic, so consider these suggestions.

Page 1: "Rules Illustrated by ... Cundo Rabaudi and John Zeleznik" - needs comma to maintain serial comma consistency

In 3.01 the vehicle names are given,then the acronym, except for one . Why not do this for the GEV-PC, at least for the PC part?
3.03 - no acronym for Truck?

Outside of the Size Table (pg. 14) the abbreviation of Mark as MK. occurs only a few, apparently random, times. Why not write out Mark everywhere outside of the Size Table?

Usual practice is to write out smaller numbers (often twelve or less), then use numerals for higher numbers. I can see why you want to use numerals when referring to die results, but there is inconsistency in using numerals versus words for smaller numbers elsewhere. For example, the opening paragraph has this sentence "Playing time is
between 30 minutes and 1 hour." Convention would say that it should read "one hour." And later on in the same page (1.04) you have "In a tournament game, it is suggested that every round consist of two games, with each player attacking once and defending once." There are other occurrences of this.

7.11 Why not maintain the NDX order in the bullet points?

[irthinker]

Things are shaping up nicely.

In a number of wargames, changing facing costs movement points and your facing has implications. My memory of OGRE/GEV is that facing is irrelevant bu searching the rulebook does not explicitly confirm that.

While the irrelevance of facing is implied in the current rulebook (by the suggestions to slightly change facing to keep track of which units have moved or fired), it might be worth stating explicitly that facing does not affect firing nor does it cost movement points.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by SCUBA Hero

7.13.2 Attacks on Ogre Treads

Question: Are multiple infantry squads in the same hex required to fire as a group, required to fire separately, or can the firing player choose how to group them?

That is, if there are three infantry squads in the same hex firing on an Ogre's treads, must they make a single roll at an Attack Strength of three, three rolls each at an Attack Strength of one, or may the firing player choose either of the above or a roll at an Attack Strength of one and a second roll at an Attack Strength of two?

See 7.07.1

Infantry can divide up its attack however you see fit. With a squad of 3, you could attack with any variation; one 3-squad, one 2-squad and one 1-squad, or three 1-squad attacks.

[irthinker]

Originally Posted by offsides

1) I still think GEV rams on non-Ogre units (6.07.2) should attack with double the defense strength and not the attack strength, since rams are based on mass/momentum and not firepower. It really only affects GEV-PCs, but it really stands out to me.

That speaks more to a game design choice, which I do not think is up for debate. However, I can refute the notion on behalf of the game designers:

The core fluff of the game is that the battlefield GEV is made possible because of super light armor, so the massiveness of the GEV is not necessarily relevant nor reflective of its defensive capability. If anything, one could use that argument to say that ramming an Ogre with a GEV should be mostly irrelevant.

However, the fluff goes on to talk about the need for tactical nuclear shells to penetrate the armor and the GEV most certainly has such munitions on board, and, presumably some sort of power supply that will explode in a very entertaining, Hollwood-esque fashion.

So, the real danger posed is by the munitions, and possibly power supply, detonating on the GEV. Therefore the offensive strength makes more sense.

In the eyes of the Ogre, we are basically talking about the game mechanical approximation of a rocket-powered gazelle* with an autocannon (with tactical nuclear shells, of course). :-D

* - with water skis :-D

[GranitePenguin]

Discrepancy in GEV movement by the water:

In 5.08.2, GEVs transitioning from water to land (or vice versa), must end movement for that movement phase (just like a stream). However, the terrain effects table says "Must end movement for the turn", which suggests a GEV will lose its second movement phase (like it is explicitly stated for a swamp).

The wording for GEVs and Water on the Terrain Effects Table should reflect ending movement for the phase, not the turn.

In addition: I am sooo happy that my case numbering suggestion made it in. I'm glad it was worthy of the hassle.

[DeeJaye6]

Page 4, Mark III Attack, 2nd paragraph:

You mention "North, Central, and South areas" here, but go on to talk about North Area and South Area, etc. Note that you did not capitalize "area" in the first mention, but you did in every other use of the word "area" in conjunction with North, Central, and South.

[sqw]

Ref sheet - Page 1

"The intermediate result is a D. " - to be consistent and easier to read should be "D is a disabled result" to match with the NE and X lines

Page 2:


The second page is not very clear overall - I would like to see something crisper and quicker to read/decipher:

1) Lots of referals to "same as..." which means you have to track back up the page

2) Defense strength changes should be clearer and distinct from movement changes

3) Sometimes says "no effect on movement" sometimes "no effect" - keep it simple and consistent

4) Just way too many words in general. "2MP to enter" would be clearer than "costs 2 movement points to enter"


Water: "Must end movement for turn before transitioning from land to water, or vice versa."

1) Does this mean that the second movement phase is not allowed?
2) "transitioning" should be a simpler word like "moving from land to water"


Beach: has a row of "same as clear terrain" - this should be "no effect"

Rubble: If you're sticking with "same as swamp" then Infanty is also "same as swamp"

[ScarecrowKing]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

See 7.07.1

Infantry can divide up its attack however you see fit. With a squad of 3, you could attack with any variation; one 3-squad, one 2-squad and one 1-squad, or three 1-squad attacks.

He was asking about treads in particular. In that case, each squad must fire separately.

-Brian