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. > Ogre Video Game

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2017, 08:18 PM   #61
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman View Post
As it reads, it implies reducing infantry can only occur twice per turn.
It does? I honestly don't understand where this intepretation is coming from, 6.06 doesn't even use the word "twice" or suggest a limit. The two rams limit given elsewhere is explicitly a limit on rams, so there's no reason to expect it to apply to the explicitly not-ramming of infantry in another section of the rules entirely.

I never thought thought there was a limit, or played with one, and I wouldn't even have known there was any confusion without this thread.
Quote:
If the new rule is it can do this as often as it has movement points,
this needs clarification in the 6.06 rule itself.
That isn't a new rule. This has always been the rule.
Quote:
Leaving it at "When all its AP weapons are gone, an Ogre/SHVY can no longer reduce infantry in this way."
Is not clear enough because it does not take into account the OGREs movement.
Well no, but that is because the AP requirement is a completely separate test from the MP cost. The part about "may expend a movement point, stay in the same hex" is the part that accounts for movement costs.

The AP test doesn't have to account for movement just like having a both a functioning missile rack and at least one internal missile is test for if you can shoot missiles that doesn't account for movement, even if you need to move to get in range to hit anything with said missiles.

This seems like a thing that confused some people, but not many, which makes it a FAQ rather than an erratum, IMO.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 08:44 PM   #62
Mack_JB
 
Mack_JB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
I never thought thought there was a limit, or played with one, and I wouldn't even have known there was any confusion without this thread.
And the only reason I began this thread is initially in the Steam game, the Ogre was only allowed two total rams on anything, armor or infantry. It's been fixed in the computer game, and way back on page one SJ himself said it should be read the way we've been playing it.
Mack_JB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 10:15 AM   #63
Mack_JB
 
Mack_JB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

So normally I get the Ogre close enough to the CP on Steam and just pop it with some AP. The other day I actually rammed it, having lost all my weapons before I got there. I'd never noticed, but why is the stationary CP listed as being a "Heavy Tracked Vehicle"?
Mack_JB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 02:50 PM   #64
Dave Crowell
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

I have always played Infantry being reduced by Ogres SJ's way. I agree that it may be more of a FAQ issue than an erratum.

As for the CP being a heavy track unit, maybe it's really an MCP that ran out of tread units? I guess they had to call it something.
Dave Crowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 03:15 PM   #65
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack_JB View Post
So normally I get the Ogre close enough to the CP on Steam and just pop it with some AP. The other day I actually rammed it, having lost all my weapons before I got there. I'd never noticed, but why is the stationary CP listed as being a "Heavy Tracked Vehicle"?
Probably because structures don't actually have a column on the terrain effects table (for obvious reasons) but the software might require that all tokens be categorized.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 03:55 PM   #66
Tim Kauffman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
It does? I honestly don't understand where this intepretation is coming from, 6.06 doesn't even use the word "twice" or suggest a limit. The two rams limit given elsewhere is explicitly a limit on rams, so there's no reason to expect it to apply to the explicitly not-ramming of infantry in another section of the rules entirely.
Of course it doesn't use the word twice...that's why I said it's implied.
The fact there is a limit of two elsewhere in the ramming rules, which this rule is couched in, is all the more reason it should be clarified with crystal clarity.

In the rule:

An Ogre/SHVY in a hex with infantry may expend a movement point, stay in the same hex, and reduce the infantry again. When all its AP weapons are gone, an Ogre/SHVY can no longer reduce infantry in this way.

It states the OGRE can move into the same hex and reduce the infantry again(.) That's a two times limit being implied when considering the limit elsewhere in the ramming rules. Then it ends the rule with stating when all it's AP guns are gone, it can't reduce infantry anymore. Well, obviously, if it doesn't have AP weapons left, it could't reduce infantry anymore. Also, the OGRE would not loose any AP when reducing infantry this way. If anything, that is a redundant rule statement, but it's one that Imho should be there for clarity. This leaves the question of how many times can a OGRE reduce infantry this way because it does not mention movement as the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
This seems like a thing that confused some people, but not many, which makes it a FAQ rather than an erratum, IMO.
So, if "some" people lets estimate = 25% of the OGRE player base, who are confused and 75% are not is that acceptable?

It's those "some" people that will shy away from OGRE because the rules are not clear for them, or they won't play it as much or be inclined to teach it as much. If we want more OGRE players we should strive to be more inclusive of it's player base, regardless of our own personal grasp on the rules.
What about the new player reading the rules for the first time having FAQs? How much less likely are they to take a shine to the game and want to play and teach it?

The OGRE rules are written in a very legal format. This is not always conducive to understanding by the widest possible readership (read as Player base).
I suggest a companion rules set for OGRE be written that can be understood by the laymen. (Read as player base that have FAQs and new players).

Call it The IDIOT'S GUIDE TO OGRE...but seriously folks...

I recall it being discussed during the 2012 KS about if the rules should be rewritten or kept in the same format. It was decided to be kept as is. That tells me there was concern about the rules not being as accessible as they could be. That is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when you have a portion of the player base having issues with understanding the rules as "some" clearly do. This will continue until new rules are written that compliment the already existing rules and how they are formatted. This new rebooting of the rules can coexist beside the rules we currently have.

This would make for a nice submission to The OGREzine...Challenge accepted. ;)
__________________
"So I stood my ground...my only hope to die as I had always lived-fighting" John Carter of Mars

My Flicker Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...57680554140954
Tim Kauffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2017, 08:43 PM   #67
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
If we didn't have 8.05.1, any sane player would simply say "the Ogre can't return fire, so just call it good" and fast-track to the Ogre being dead.

The real reason 8.05.1 exists is probably more along the line of the "4 minute turn" concept. It's unrealistic to think an Ogre that can't return fire is going to stick around and will disengage. The "2 more fire rounds" just represents the amount of time it takes for the Ogre to run away. It's also horribly un-fun for an Ogre auto-kill in that situation to exist; 8.05.1 gives an out so the game stays interesting.
We use a house rule - An ogre can duck out of an overrun after taking its licks for two more fire rounds. An opponent got frustrated that my MkV was stripping all but that last SB on his MkIII, started chomping off treads, and couldn't fathom why he had to wait until he was out of guns to sneak off.

That probably doesn't help this discussion any more than my tossing in a statement like: Why is it just AP guns to reduce, and not SBs or main guns?

I think the overrun rules from GEV are more fun, have fewer caveats, and work better than the ram/reduce rules from Ogre. I wish there were a way to switch just that on in the video game even though it'd get very fiddly very fast.
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 01:20 PM   #68
offsides
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman View Post
In the rule:

An Ogre/SHVY in a hex with infantry may expend a movement point, stay in the same hex, and reduce the infantry again. When all its AP weapons are gone, an Ogre/SHVY can no longer reduce infantry in this way.

It states the OGRE can move into the same hex and reduce the infantry again(.) That's a two times limit being implied when considering the limit elsewhere in the ramming rules. Then it ends the rule with stating when all it's AP guns are gone, it can't reduce infantry anymore. Well, obviously, if it doesn't have AP weapons left, it could't reduce infantry anymore. Also, the OGRE would not loose any AP when reducing infantry this way. If anything, that is a redundant rule statement, but it's one that Imho should be there for clarity. This leaves the question of how many times can a OGRE reduce infantry this way because it does not mention movement as the answer.
I'm not sure where you're getting a limit of 2 times from that by implication. If anything, you're making an (IMHO incorrect) inference of a limit of twice from the word 'again' and what's in 6.01 (which admittedly needs clarification). However, if you break down the rule you listed you'll find the following:
  1. "An Ogre/SHVY in a hex with infantry" - in order for this situation to exist under the Ogre Ramming rules, the Ogre must have overrun and reduced the infantry unit at least once already (since INF cannot overrun the Ogre), either ending its movement from the previous turn in the hex with reduced infantry (and they somehow survived and didn't move on their next turn), or having moved into the hex and reducing them once already on this turn.
  2. "may expend a movement point, stay in the same hex, and reduce the infantry again." - Please note that this does not state the number of times this can be done, only that one movement point is required to reduce infantry an additional time (which matches up with the requirement listed above for being in the same hex). The only condition that must occur for this action to be taken is that the Ogre (or SHVY) currently be in the same hex as infantry, per #1.
  3. While I listed the two most common reasons for the situation in #1 to exist, there is a third, corner case - not only has the Ogre entered the hex and overrun the infantry, but it has ALSO expended an additional movement point and reduced the infantry again. This only works if it was a 3 INF to begin with, and is now down to a 1 INF. At this point, #2 is still available as an option, as the only condition for using it is still true - there's still INF in the hex with the Ogre.
While the rules may not be clear enough for everyone to get them at first glance, they are, once you work through the logic (especially after the erratum clarification on the ram limit specifying 2 armor units), unequivocal. That's why I believe that a FAQ is a better option than an erratum for this case.

P.S. I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi with the difference between 'imply' and 'infer', above; in this case it does make a significant difference in how things are being interpreted. If the rules actually implied a limit of 2 infantry overruns beyond the need for the 'armor units' clarification, I would agree it needed to be changed.
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division
offsides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 03:19 PM   #69
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman View Post
So, if "some" people lets estimate = 25% of the OGRE player base, who are confused and 75% are not is that acceptable?
If it was just you, it would just be an AQ. Errata are things that are incorrect in the rules, which this isn't. FAQs are answers to questions that come up a few times, which this is.

FAQs are in addition to, and seperate from, the rules, errata are changes to the rules which will be included in future printings. How many words do you propose to add? Which words are you going to cut to make room?

Quote:
What about the new player reading the rules for the first time having FAQs? How much less likely are they to take a shine to the game and want to play and teach it?
Since this seems to come from people who read the 1977 rules and didn't read any subsequent edition very closely this is the opposite of that problem. New players have no reason to think that there is a limit on reduction other than cost.

Quote:
The OGRE rules are written in a very legal format. This is not always conducive to understanding by the widest possible readership (read as Player base).
I suggest a companion rules set for OGRE be written that can be understood by the laymen. (Read as player base that have FAQs and new players).
I voted for a more modern style rule book, but the majority voted for your grandfather's war game case system style and that ship sailed a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalend View Post
That probably doesn't help this discussion any more than my tossing in a statement like: Why is it just AP guns to reduce, and not SBs or main guns?
Artillery, when used as a close defense weapon comes with labels like "Final Protective Fire" and "Danger Close" and isn't usually a thing you want to do a lot. MGs, OTOH, are made for repelling assaults with fire.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 03:31 PM   #70
offsides
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
Default Re: Question on 'Ramming'

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Artillery, when used as a close defense weapon comes with labels like "Final Protective Fire" and "Danger Close" and isn't usually a thing you want to do a lot. MGs, OTOH, are made for repelling assaults with fire.
That's what I always figured - MB and SB need to be aimed fairly closely to take out a BPC-armored anything, not to mention the potential for backlash from the close proximity nuclear detonation damaging the Ogre. AP, on the other hand, just fire continuously as the Ogre sweeps past and handwavium does the rest.
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division
offsides is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.