12-08-2013, 01:17 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
Yeah. Not surprising considering section 6 assumes no stacking, and section 8 is so sparing of ramming rules.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
12-08-2013, 01:18 PM | #12 | ||
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
Quote:
5.111 from GEV (year 2000)Subtle differences... It used to be that INF had to start in the same hex, they no longer have to; but they did not have a restriction on mount/dismount in the same turn, and now they do. I'm not sure which one is "better" but the older rule would have avoided the current confusion. There's still the overall issue that INF riding rammed units is basically ignored in general (and really always has been).
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
||
12-08-2013, 01:27 PM | #13 | ||
Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
GranitePenguin Ogre Line Editor |
||
12-08-2013, 02:03 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
After reading the rules again, I agree that INF the mount and then ride into an overrun are stuck on their vehicle (and thus subject to the single attack roll). What I'm not sure about is if that's really a good idea - I think I'd rather see INF forced to dismount in an overrun situation regardless of when they mounted, since logically that's what any intelligent INF would do :) I just don't know how well that would work...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
12-08-2013, 02:13 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Section 6 will never apply here - Ramming rules are only allowed if stacking (and this INF riding vehicles, at least externally) is disallowed. Thus only overrun rules apply when INF are riding, and the only ramming possibility is at the end of the first fire round for each side. The only question in my mind is whether INF should be allowed to remain mounted (in which case the current rules should apply), or should they be forced to dismount...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
12-08-2013, 02:21 PM | #16 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
Defensive dismounting has the odd effect of allowing the infantry to move normally on their next turn, which would have been impossible if they hadn't received an overrun. However, that's true whether or not the infantry mounted recently. Quote:
For instance, consider a loaded GEV-PC punching through a weak holding position of one LGEV (or if you're living dangerously, an infantry squad or GEV), headed for an urgent appointment on the other side of the hex. Considering that it's not actually forbidden to attempt to overrun an Ogre, telling your guys they don't have time to get off the carrier for this seems a tolerable demand. EDIT: And this could occur over water too. EDIT2: And of course 8.06.1 explicitly makes dismounting an option, not mandatory.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
12-08-2013, 02:40 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
If 8.06.1 makes it optional, then the requirements of 5.11.3 are in full effect unless 8.06.1 is changed to override it.
Of 8.06.1 make it mandatory, it automatically overrides 5.11.3 regarding the dismount restriction. In any event, the answer to your GEV-PC example is simple - you don't overrun if you can't afford having the INF dismount. If that means you have to go the long way, that's what you do. Decisions like those are what tactical wargames are all about...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
12-08-2013, 02:55 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
That's not really a decision, it's a lack of option. Which is also a fair bit of what tactical wargames are about to be fair.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
12-08-2013, 04:25 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
And it's always an option as long as the move is legal. It may be a terrible choice to take that option, but it's still an option...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|
12-08-2013, 04:53 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: May 2012
|
Re: Mounted infantry, overruns, and ramming
Quote:
As for the reasoning... the in-universe explanation is always the last to go to, and as we've seen that anyone could give an in-universe explanation either for dismounting or against it. Best to stick to what the rules say, and it seems that "as written" the movement section takes priority and mounted units suffer for it. The older rule may have avoided the confusion, but would have allowed move-boosting, which is why I'm inclined to think the current rules mean mounted infantry go splat. I guess we'll get an official answer down the line, haha.
__________________
MIG 00002 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|