Question on 'Ramming'

[Dave Crowell]

If I were playing the Ogre in a scenario with an "Ogre escapes" clause in the victory conditions I wouldn't want to just call the Ogre dead because it has ended an overrun with no weapons remaining. I would want to run for the edge of the map.

I think it is worth stating explicitly that the limit on how many times an Ogre may use movement/AP to reduce is Infantry is the number of Movement Points available. Especially since the rule for this is placed as a sub-case of the ramming rules. Ramming being limited to two rams per turn.

If Ogres reducing infantry were presented as part of the movement rules, or before ramming it might not need the extra emphasis.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

It's implying as long as the OGRE has movement it can reduce infantry, which then implies the number of times infantry can be reduced is dependent upon the OGREs movement it has left...up to the point where it cannot which is: "When all its AP weapons are gone, or all it's movement has been used, an Ogre/SHVY can no longer reduce infantry in this way."

That is not logically accurate. "An Ogre does not literally “ram” infantry, but any Ogre with AP weapons (or a Superheavy Tank) may move into an infantry hex as though the infantry were not there." makes it clear that AP are the determining factor.

There are only four possible combinations:
1. No movement and No AP - Not relevant; you aren't moving, so nothing happens
2. No movement and have AP - Not relevant; you aren't moving, so nothing happens
3. Movement and No AP - Not relevant; you are moving, but no AP (you MUST have AP to be allowed to move into the hex in the first place).
4. Movement and have AP - This is when things get invoked.

Out of these four, there is only one case (#4: Movement AND AP) where this rule applies.

"When all its AP weapons are gone, an Ogre/SHVY can no longer reduce infantry in this way." is more than sufficient, and is not ambiguous at all regarding the reduction of INF during movement. It is logically unnecessary to say "or all it's movement has been used" because the rule isn't even engaged _unless_ the Ogre moves into the hex with the INF in the first place.

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

If I were playing the Ogre in a scenario with an "Ogre escapes" clause in the victory conditions I wouldn't want to just call the Ogre dead because it has ended an overrun with no weapons remaining. I would want to run for the edge of the map.

That's a separate discussion and is exactly why the rule (8.05.1) exists that overruns stop if the Ogre can't fight back, so there's nothing to discuss.

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

I think it is worth stating explicitly that the limit on how many times an Ogre may use movement/AP to reduce is Infantry is the number of Movement Points available. Especially since the rule for this is placed as a sub-case of the ramming rules. Ramming being limited to two rams per turn.

If Ogres reducing infantry were presented as part of the movement rules, or before ramming it might not need the extra emphasis.

Explicitly stating the limit is probably the clarification that would be the most helpful. The main confusion is that it's not immediately obvious that the maximum number of times INF can be reduced "in this way" (i.e., reduction via AP during movement) is equal to the current movement.

Unfortunately, it still probably belongs under ramming. The only other place I could see maybe putting it is under 5.04 (eg, 5.04.1), but I think that would be _more_ confusing because you would have to address both ramming and overrun details for an Ogre in order to explain it. It's probably better to clarify 6.06.

[Dave Crowell]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Explicitly stating the limit is probably the clarification that would be the most helpful. The main confusion is that it's not immediately obvious that the maximum number of times INF can be reduced "in this way" (i.e., reduction via AP during movement) is equal to the current movement.

Unfortunately, it still probably belongs under ramming. The only other place I could see maybe putting it is under 5.04 (eg, 5.04.1), but I think that would be _more_ confusing because you would have to address both ramming and overrun details for an Ogre in order to explain it. It's probably better to clarify 6.06.

Placing the Infantry reduction rules at 6.06, after 6.01 which tells us ramming a unit is accomplished by moving into its hex and 6.01.1 Limit on ramming. "An Ogre may ram no more than twice per turn, or one enemy Ogre per turn," is what may lead to the confusion. Calling out infantry as an exception to the normal ramming rules in either of these places would awkward however.

An alternative clarification for the issue would be to ammand rule 6.01.1 to "An Ogre may ram armor units no more than twice..." 6.06 could then remain unchanged as it deals with infantry which are not armor.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

An alternative clarification for the issue would be to ammand rule 6.01.1 to "An Ogre may ram armor units no more than twice..." 6.06 could then remain unchanged as it deals with infantry which are not armor.

I think that's already been offered as an update for clarification from other discussions, so that would help.

[Dave Crowell]

Or we could change it to "Any Ogre that enters a hex with enemy infantry is imediately destroyed! Go pick on somebody your own size."

[offsides]

To reduce confusion on the fact that the number of MP is the limit to the number if INF reductions an Ogre can perform in a turn, I would suggest updating 6.01.1, and adding a FAQ (NOT a rule statement) about reducing INF.

For 6.01.1, how about this:

6.01.1 Limit on ramming. An Ogre may ram no more than two armor units per turn, or one enemy Ogre per turn. See 6.06 for details on "ramming" infantry.

For the FAQ, how about this:

Q: How many times may an Ogre reduce INF in 1 turn using 6.06?
A: An Ogre may reduce INF by 1 each time it moves into a hex containing INF, or by remaining in the same hex and spending 1 additional MP, until the Ogre has used all of its MP for that turn. Thus an undamaged Mk IV can reduce INF up to 4 times per turn, assuming it only has to spend 1 MP each time it moves into a new hex.

It's worth specifying the difference between MP and moves, because if using the ramming rules on a G.E.V. map it may cost the Ogre 2MP to enter a hex, but that still only reduces the INF by 1. (And can I say that "ramming" INF in a town hex sounds massively preferable to having to overrun them? :P)

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

Or we could change it to "Any Ogre that enters a hex with enemy infantry is imediately destroyed! Go pick on somebody your own size."

Hah! That sounds fair. :-)

[Tim Kauffman]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

An alternative clarification for the issue would be to ammand rule 6.01.1 to "An Ogre may ram armor units no more than twice..." 6.06 could then remain unchanged as it deals with infantry which are not armor.

The clarification to 6.01.1 sounds good. However...

6.06 Reducing infantry. An Ogre does not literally “ram”
infantry, but any Ogre with AP weapons (or a Superheavy Tank)
may move into an infantry hex as though the infantry were not
there. If the Ogre/SHVY has any antipersonnel weapons left, the
infantry unit is automatically reduced by one squad. This does not
count as an “attack” for the AP weapons. 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.

As it reads, it implies reducing infantry can only occur twice per turn. 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. 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.

This is getting way to arcane and semantical.

All that needs done is the insertion of something mentioning the number of times this can be done on the OGREs turn
is based on how many movement it has available in rule 6.06(.)

[Mack_JB]

This was pretty clear long ago that Ogres can ram tanks only twice per entire turn sequence, and may "ram" infantry" as many times as they had remaining movement points per turn sequence. I've been playing it that way for decades. Maybe eliminate the word "Ram" in regards to INF, and replace it with "Reduce" instead, but otherwise, the complications come from folks reading too much complex stuff into it.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

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.

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.

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.