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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2016, 07:18 PM   #11
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

[EDIT: I saw the posts confirming what I surmised. "Never mind" says Roseanne Roseannadanna.] Is this rule book supposed to end on page 12? If so, ignore the following:

1. With the Ogre stacking rule (5.02) in effect, nix the references to spillover fire from section 13 and the Combat Results Table.

2. Rules for the train and for damage to towns/forests/roads are not applicable to the Ogre map (unless people use overlays to mod the terrian).

3. Will superheavies, lasers, and cruise missiles be in the countermix? If people borrow those from the DE, they'll already have rules for them.

Last edited by ghostofjfd; 02-06-2016 at 07:54 PM.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 07:21 PM   #12
HeatDeath
 
Join Date: May 2012
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Rule 1.01: I'm not certain if directing players to "skim sections 1 through 7" to quickly begin play makes a lot of sense in a book that only has 8 sections. The Quick Start book, which I'm looking at side-by-side with the new PDF, just says read the entire quick start rules. Some variant on its wording might be more helpful.

1.03: Are there any scenarios in the game other than "the scenarios in this section"?

I might consider adding a sub-heading for "Scenarios" after 1.04 but before diving into the Scenarios text, which is more substantial than the corresponding section in ODE or the Quick Start Rules.

2.00.3: I would recommend adding a disclaimer recommending players test their poster putty on the back of the map first (standard verbiage is "an unobtrusive area") to ensure it does not stain.

2.01: You omitted the clause "which governs entry into the hex", which might be relevant rules-wise, but should be fine. It seems mostly like a stylistic choice.

2.01.2: "The small cracks around craters do not affect movement" may be redundant in this version: no one can enter or start in craters, so no one ever has to cross crater rims.
If you are not including laser turrets, then you do not, at this point, have to answer a question I had a year or so ago, about whether laser turrets can fire over crater rims. [The art on the orange map makes crater rims visually indistinguishable (without a magnifying glass) from ridges, which block laser LOS, but 2.01.2 says "units can fire over craters". Laser turrets are the only units affected by the appearance of the orange map crater rims (everything else is using indirect fire on everything), so you don't need to worry about it for this version.

3.00: "Squad sizes" seems awkward. "Numbers of squads" is more accurate. I would also probably say "on the front and back" rather than "on front and back"

3.01: The GEV section has references to terrain and water that are irrelevant to this version.

3.04.1 - Antipersonnel: it may be worth calling out that the CP is a [indeed, the only, in this version of the game] zero-defense unit, and can be destroyed by AP guns as much as by ramming or other weapons fire.

3.05: Conversely, it may be worth calling out here that "any attack" includes Ogre AP guns.

4.01: Referring to the hypothetical player as exclusively male may be unnecessarily limiting. I don't recall seeing any similarly gendered language up to this point. EDIT: The Scenarios section, and Section 7 both contain similarly gendered language.

4.02: I would omit the reference to "in a two player game" in the opening paragraph, and replace "It is now the other player's turn" with "It is now the next player's turn." This should allow a smoother flow into the multiplayer rules sections below.

4.02 - Recovery: As ghostofjfd points out below, there is no way for a unit to become disabled except by ramming or weapons fire in this game, so there is no need to drawn the distinction.

4.02 - Notes: As above, it is not necessary to keep track of how units are disabled in this version of the game, or when, for that matter. Unlike GEV, disables only last a fixed length of time in this version - there are no rolls for recovery.

5.01: "The terrain shown on the map can increase or decrease movement". Not in this version. The terrain on the orange map allows or disallows movement, but does not increase or decrease the cost to enter a single hex.
I confirmed that the CRT is on page 12, as the crossreference states. [I have been checking the other crossreferences as I have encountered them They all seem fine so far.] I note that the components list does not indicate that a reference card is included. It would therefore be very ergonomic and convenient for the CRT to be on the back cover of the rulebook (as it may already be) so that it is continuously available without opening a book all the time.

5.04: It would be nice to have a cross-reference here to the rules section that says which units are actually capable of ramming.

7.12.1.1: You have omitted this rule, detailing attacks on stacks of infantry. While the rules mention earlier, in the Movement section, that infantry squads may freely combine and split during movement, this rule may still be required, especially if the counter mix may leave the player short on 3-strength infantry counters in larger scenarios.

7.13.3: You have omitted this rule, which details the circumstances necessary to properly destroy an Ogre. This rule may be required so as to clarify the victory conditions for the main scenarios. Or it may just be muddying the waters, but it's worth pointing out. If it continues to be omitted, the precise definition of destroying an Ogre should be added, probably in the scenarios section.

13.00: This is the only section where the missing rules numbers are really blatant, because and especially since there is no 13.01. It may be worth having an introductory sentence explaining that this is to keep the rules numbering consistent with ODE. The "Section Numbering" sidebar on Page 1 would be a good place to slip in a mention that there is no 13.01. That way it's not as jarring when they get there.

13.04: It might be worth pointing out that a mine explosion does not transform a hex into a crater.

13.05, 13.06: The text of these sections is fine. I should point out, though, that none of the included scenarios mention their use, so it might be worth adding a sentence indicating that these are for when players are creating their own scenarios. [Which in turn might make it a good idea to include a brief section on doing just that, including the armor equivalences for the Mk III and Mk V.] Also, it goes without saying that if these are mentioned in the rules text, the counter sheets should include at least a few of the required ? and dummy counters. It might be worth rewording these rules slightly so that they can use the same counters. EDIT: I see that red ? counters are included, and that the rules are worded to make it clear that numbered ? counters are used to implement both rules. Will these wordings work if a player wants both dummy units and camoflaged units in a single scenario?

[That's everything I found in a good first pass. Comparing the text with the quick start text side by side was very beneficial, and enabled at least one or two catches I wouldn't have made otherwise.]

Last edited by HeatDeath; 02-07-2016 at 12:42 AM.
HeatDeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 07:26 PM   #13
Steve Jackson
President and EIC
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

ghostofjfd - That's right, the book is supposed to end on 12.

HeatDeath - Yes, that is exactimately the kind of holdover I'm looking for. Thanks.
Steve Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:00 PM   #14
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

from 4.02:
All the player’s units which were disabled before
the last enemy turn by ramming or enemy fire now recover
automatically.
from 7.11:
A unit disabled by ramming or enemy fire recovers after one full
enemy turn has passed. If it becomes disabled on an enemy turn, . . .
There is no terrain-induced disabling, so we don't need to draw the distinction. All disabled units will have been disabled by ramming or enemy fire during an enemy turn. Or am I overlooking any possibilities for when/how a unit might get disabled in strict Ogre?
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:03 PM   #15
ldj00
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bloomington, IN
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Hello,

Page 7, Section 4.04 Games with Three or More Sides. Not sure three sides is really feasible or needed with the Ogre map and included scenarios? I believe this is different from three player games.
__________________
LDJ
ldj00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:10 PM   #16
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldj00 View Post
Hello,

Page 7, Section 4.04 Games with Three or More Sides. Not sure three sides is really feasible or needed with the Ogre map and included scenarios? I believe this is different from three player games.
Good point, since the set will include counters colored for two factions. But in a Duel or made-up scenario, there might be more than two sides. So maybe 4.04 should stay in.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:16 PM   #17
Thirdpower
 
Thirdpower's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Central Illinois
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

I'm overflowing on OGRE as is so I'm hoping for the separate sheets. Will the die be offered separately as well?
__________________
Days of Our Trailers Blog/Twitter/Facebook Get your KS$4.5K Nihon Sponsor sheet here.
Thirdpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:23 PM   #18
HeatDeath
 
Join Date: May 2012
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofjfd View Post
Good point, since the set will include counters colored for two factions. But in a Duel or made-up scenario, there might be more than two sides. So maybe 4.04 should stay in.
The "Mark IIIs Attacking" scenario section specifically calls out the possibility of it being the basis for a three player game.
HeatDeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:48 PM   #19
Triphos
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

As a KS backer I think this is great and I really hope it gives me more people to share my frankly ridiculous collection of Ogre material with.
Triphos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 08:58 PM   #20
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldj00 View Post
Hello,

Page 7, Section 4.04 Games with Three or More Sides. Not sure three sides is really feasible or needed with the Ogre map and included scenarios? I believe this is different from three player games.
The basic Ogre is very suitable to a 3 or 4-player game. I often use it when doing demos with odd numbers of people. A common 3-player game is to take the Mark V scenario and split it into two Mark IIIs against a defense. For 4 players, take that same setup and split the defense in half. It actually makes for some interesting challenges with coordinating tactics.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin 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 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.