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 02-10-2016, 09:51 PM   #51
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brionl View Post
So, it this going to have 3D Ogres or the flat ones?
3D Ogres (they are described in the rules on page 5):
3-D counters are provided for Ogres, a Command Post, and a Mobile Command Post.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 07:27 AM   #52
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
3D Ogres (they are described in the rules on page 5):
3-D counters are provided for Ogres, a Command Post, and a Mobile Command Post.
Can we get flat, one-hex ogres in the box, too? Much easier to carry from place to place, much easier to explain to new players where the ogre is, and leaves the sweet spot behind the ogre uncluttered.
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 07:35 AM   #53
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeatDeath View Post
...
The design intent in Ogre seems to be that nothing ever stacks at all. Ogres ramming each other stay in adjacent hexes, armor never ram each other because they're always on the same side, infantry can't ram or be rammed, and an Ogre ram is automatic death to any armor unit.
Um.. There's a 50% chance the armor survives the ram. I really like leaving a disabled tank behind my ogre (even better two hexes back) in the clash.

Quote:
As is already called out in the instructions, infantry surviving being stepped down and then fired by an Ogre at is the only case where any two units ever end up in the same hex. And it's really an edge case that is pretty unlikely to actually happen in motivated play.
Also, I park on the surviving INF frequently at M1. Those INF will be in range of my guns next turn. Others may not be.

We really must play a game some time, HeatDeath. Clash of styles.

Quote:
This box should be Ogre being Ogre - let's not try to sneak chunks of GEV into it. The prospect of attacker GEVs ramming defending armor (or defending GEVs ramming the attacking GEVs) is about as far as we want to go down that road, and frankly I don't think it would damage the game overly just to disallow armor ramming armor altogether.
Can we do that? Leave out 6.07.03? The GEV ram is a late addition to the game. It makes more sense as part of GEV (with stacking and overruns) than Ogre.
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 08:07 AM   #54
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Speaking of that GEV ramming rule, there's a stray period in the draft rules document:
6.07.3 Ramming by GEVs. . GEVs ram Ogres as described
Call me boring if you want, but I'm focused on hunting errors and inconsistencies at this point, not suggesting revisions.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 09:01 AM   #55
HeatDeath
 
Join Date: May 2012
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalend View Post
Um.. There's a 50% chance the armor survives the ram. I really like leaving a disabled tank behind my ogre (even better two hexes back) in the clash.



Also, I park on the surviving INF frequently at M1. Those INF will be in range of my guns next turn. Others may not be.

We really must play a game some time, HeatDeath. Clash of styles.
D'oh. My bad. Too much time spent playing Breakthrough and overruns, not enough time spent smashing CPs, I guess. :)

That said, As the Ogre I don't like leaving anything disabled behind me. I'm not on a clock [unless I'm under an artillery umbrella or a huge wave of infantry is bearing down on me], and leaving surviving armor behind me just sounds like a recipe for leaking tread points unnecessarily in the late game.

Quote:
Can we do that? Leave out 6.07.03? The GEV ram is a late addition to the game. It makes more sense as part of GEV (with stacking and overruns) than Ogre.
Regarding ramming, I really see it as being an implicit function of troop morale. Even though Ogre doesn't model morale explicitly, scenario-specific rules allow you to model it implicitly. In the endgame of a typical Smash-the-CP, the defender have literally no morale left. This makes desperation ramming of the Ogre a realistic possibility. The fiction captured that very well. But that's not the typical situation you see in most GEV scenarios - for example, Breakthrough - things aren't usually anywhere near that desperate. [Not to mention that GEV-ramming opens up weird game-y events and exploits that require extensive debate to nail back down - recall the debate when ODE's rules were being finalized about the feasibility of using LGEVs as low-yield cruise missiles. Just because an F-35 would make a dandy anti-tank missile is no reason to allow Harpoon players to use it that way.]

Quote:
Call me boring if you want, but I'm focused on hunting errors and inconsistencies at this point, not suggesting revisions.
I did tend to concentrate my first pass on making sure, as Steve requested, that there weren't any rules left in that weren't germane to Ogre, and that nothing had been removed that was necessary for Ogre. This subthread grew out of suggestions that started to sound like gradually importing larger and larger chunks of GEV's stacking infrastructure (in response to the fact that the ramming rules, which were highlighted by this edition's introduction of the possibility or armor->armor ramming, have an edge case where multiple units end up in a stack), which seemed contrary to that direction.

When and if Steve posts a new PDF, I definitely agree that a closer search for spelling and punctuation bugs should be a high priority for another proofreading pass.

Last edited by HeatDeath; 02-11-2016 at 09:47 AM.
HeatDeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 10:22 AM   #56
wolf90
Ogre Line Editor
 
wolf90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brionl View Post
So, it this going to have 3D Ogres or the flat ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
Q: Is this the promised “expansion set” from the Kickstarter? A: No, this is entirely separate. The expansion set will contain, among other things, an Ogre that has not yet been in 3-D form, and maps S3 and G3.

Q: Will there be a die? An Ogre garage? A: Yes to the die; it will be a new color. Yes to the Ogre garage, too, but the details are still in print buying.
My take on this is a resounding "yes"!

D.
__________________
Proud sponsor of Ogre KS $4.5k Sheet #3 - Bringing the Vatican Guard, a Tiger-striped mercenary unit, and of course pink GEVs, to a game near you! Orders may be placed here.
wolf90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 10:27 AM   #57
wolf90
Ogre Line Editor
 
wolf90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofjfd View Post
Call me boring if you want, but I'm focused on hunting errors and inconsistencies at this point, not suggesting revisions.
I'd call you acting appropriately at the request of Steve. I don't think he's looking for rule revisions, just errors or omission or inclusion. And yes, extra periods would definitely fit the bill…

D.
__________________
Proud sponsor of Ogre KS $4.5k Sheet #3 - Bringing the Vatican Guard, a Tiger-striped mercenary unit, and of course pink GEVs, to a game near you! Orders may be placed here.
wolf90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 12:39 PM   #58
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeatDeath View Post
This subthread grew out of suggestions that started to sound like gradually importing larger and larger chunks of GEV's stacking infrastructure (in response to the fact that the ramming rules, which were highlighted by this edition's introduction of the possibility or armor->armor ramming, have an edge case where multiple units end up in a stack), which seemed contrary to that direction.
Watching for G.E.V. creep. That makes sense since the idea here is to cleanly extract the Ogre rules from the full Designer's Edition rules.

So far I've found the partition between ramming and overrun rules in the DE rulebook is solid, and I think the same goes for Ogre map versus G.E.V. map style stacking. With the G.E.V. ramming rules specifically, I think we're safe from overstacking. A G.E.V. that rams anything is destroyed: 6.07.2, 6.07.3.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 12:53 PM   #59
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

I think I've found a way to blunder legally into an overstack. Say an armored unit or an Ogre has ended its movement phase safely in a mined hex. A friendly Ogre with M2 but within 6 tread unit losses of M1 wants to move through the hex and continue to an empty hex on the other side. It enters the hex, the mine goes off, and the tread losses knock the Ogre down to M1. It has already spent one movement point, so now it has to stop there (by analogy to 6.04). The Ogre or armor already there has expended all of its movement points, so it can't leave either. There you are with an overstacked hex at the end of the movement phase.

Last edited by ghostofjfd; 02-11-2016 at 01:08 PM.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2016, 01:15 PM   #60
HeatDeath
 
Join Date: May 2012
Default Re: Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofjfd View Post
I think I've found a way to blunder legally into an overstack. Say an armored unit or an Ogre has ended its movement phase safely in a mined hex. A friendly Ogre with M2 but within 6 tread unit losses of M1 wants to move through the hex and on to an empty hex on the other side. It enters the hex, the mine goes off, and the tread losses knock the Ogre down to M1. It has already spent one movement point, so now it has to stop there (by analogy to 6.04). The Ogre or armor already there has expended all of its movement points, so it can't leave either. There you are with an overstacked hex at the end of the movement phase.
I'm pretty sure you're right, that'll do it. Fortunately 6.08 already refers generally to "units" (rather than infantry or armor) and seems to cover this case, providing guidance to the players on how to proceed. The problem this raises is in 5.02: what does it mean to say "only one vehicle (...) may occupy a hex" if permissible movement through a friendly-occupied hex - in combination with mines, that's a new one, good catch! - can cause this condition to occur? The statement in 5.02 obviously means something - it has the clear intent of preventing player from voluntarily stacking their units - but is, as currently worded, manifestly false.
HeatDeath 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 04:07 PM.


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