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 10-15-2017, 08:36 AM   #91
offsides
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman View Post
If a unit takes a second D result...what happens to the unit? It gets Xed.

Is that second D result only affecting the crew again and this time it kills them, or is it damaging the vehicle only, or is it damaging the vehicle and the crew?
The first D represents a "near miss" where the crew got incapacitated while trying to dodge enemy fire. The second D represents what would have been a near miss, except the crew was unable to react due to being incapacitated. The onboard AI, whle decent, doesn't have the intuition to dodge a bullet, as it were, and thus the hit is close enough for a mission kill - the crew and/or vehicle sustains enough damage to render it ineffective.

In Ogre miniatures, the second and higher X's are listed as XX - indicating a direct hit that removes the mini from the board rather than leaving a burned out husk representing a mission kill. In this case 2 D's yield an X rather than an XX - the vehicle is still physically in existence, it's just no longer a useful combat unit.

The binary system of a counter being on the board/off the board is a vast oversimplification for gameplay purposes. In real life there's all sorts of things that will cause a mission kill, including just plain dumb bad luck; conversely there's also tons of things crews can do to get around problems and keep a vehicle in operation long enough to complete the mission and/or get home (chewing gum and bailing wire, anyone? :)). I totally get the desire to add more realism to Ogre, if nothing else it's fun to speculate. But from a gameplay standpoint keeping it simple and handwaving the reasons why it works the way it works makes a ton of sense.
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division
offsides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 12:05 PM   #92
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Complexity =/= realism, anyway. Even if "D" results represented what Tim wants them to, I see no benefit in adding more special case rules that solve no actual problems.
__________________
Keeper of the GURPS Banner
ColBosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 12:07 PM   #93
Mack_JB
 
Mack_JB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

It's been stated before that the game proper isn't representing a real battle, but it is the battle as viewed from afar on the comm-screens at headquarters as the battle unfolds. If so, then individual crews are seldom known, nor are their particular special skills.
Mack_JB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 04:59 PM   #94
Tim Kauffman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Crfout
"Proposed - that GEV class vehicles, when disabled while on a water hex, are instead destroyed.

If the fans stop running, the hovercraft doesn't hover any more. It sinks. "

I don't think that a GEV should sink and be destroyed, but like the general concept that Imho may compliment the game. Hence the proposal:

* Low ranking pilots operating disabled GEVs cannot use their AI to attack while disabled.
(Or this could be early Last War GEVs).

* Official disabled GEVs can use their AI to attack while disabled.
(Or this Could be mid- Last War GEVs).

* Higher ranking GEV pilots (GEV Aces) ;) ignore all D results.
(Or this could be late Last War GEVs).


As GP mentioned, it doesn't matter what caused the D only that it happened. I agree. This proposal can exist with that in mind.

I do like the idea of maybe having early, mid, and late Last War versions of units.

Anyways, this is off topic any way, so I'll end my transmission here.
__________________
"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 10-17-2017, 09:44 AM   #95
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Another possible FAQ/errata: stacking limits and how they are applied to overruns.

Someone brought up the stacking limit of 5, but had an overrun situation where they ended up with 6 GEVs remaining after an overrun (i.e., in apparent violation of the stacking limit). The stacking limit is not an absolute (5.02.2), so having more than the limit is acceptable, but clarification on what that actually means is probably necessary.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2017, 08:58 PM   #96
GuyMacon
 
GuyMacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
Another possible FAQ/errata: stacking limits and how they are applied to overruns.

Someone brought up the stacking limit of 5, but had an overrun situation where they ended up with 6 GEVs remaining after an overrun (i.e., in apparent violation of the stacking limit). The stacking limit is not an absolute (5.02.2), so having more than the limit is acceptable, but clarification on what that actually means is probably necessary.
That would be me, in [ http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...76#post2128976 ]. BTW, is posting here the best way to make sure that a bug report gets to the right people, or should I be doing something else?
GuyMacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2017, 09:40 PM   #97
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyMacon View Post
That would be me, in [ http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...76#post2128976 ]. BTW, is posting here the best way to make sure that a bug report gets to the right people, or should I be doing something else?
bug reports should be emailed to Auroch Digital. This thread is for collecting items for the boardgame refresh of the rules, FAQ, etc.

There's a "send feedback" in the settings menu inside the game that should open the correct email address in your local mail client.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2017, 12:48 PM   #98
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

I don't think 8.05.2 is correct regarding Ogres not taking damage to treads. What is the justification for this being the case? Why wouldn't the ram be "normal effects" like everything else? For example, if a HVY rams an Ogre, it loses 2 treads, why would an Ogre ramming a HVY during an overrun not also lose 2 treads?

I don't see any valid reason why an Ogre should be able to ram with impunity during an overrun; it's still physically attacking the unit and should take tread damage as normal.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2017, 02:29 PM   #99
selenite
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
I don't think 8.05.2 is correct regarding Ogres not taking damage to treads.
That's strange. I've been playing by the 6.02 rule for tread loss even in overruns. Which makes me want to look up some of the old rule books and see when it changed.
selenite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2017, 03:43 PM   #100
offsides
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
Default Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
I don't see any valid reason why an Ogre should be able to ram with impunity during an overrun; it's still physically attacking the unit and should take tread damage as normal.
I agree - as a general rule, the damage done to an Ogre's treads should not matter whether it is the target or the recipient of a ram. The two possible justifications I can think of are 1) that ramming a la Section 6 involves chasing the target all over the hex and running them down, whereas ramming in an overrun essentially equates to "he was right there in front of me," which is why you can only ram once per overrun per Ogre; or 2) ramming an Ogre is generally a kamikaze strike, aimed at the treads, whereas ramming by an Ogre is just clipping the armor unit enough to damage it, hopefully enough for a mission kill. But even then, I don't see the lack of damage making enough sense to keep it that way. Besides, keeping things consistent throughout the rules generally outweighs most other reasons for not doing so...
__________________
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 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.