Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

"Disabled" doesn't denote damage to units. It shows that the crew is incapacitated. As seen in GURPS Ogre and other sources, every combat unit includes an AI that can undertake routine tasks, and even do a little fighting if need be. A "disabled" GEV is still hovering.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Here's a collection of AP and terrain-related questions that have come up recently that need to be added as errata and/or FAQ

AUs being affected by spillover from APs (a bug in the Video Game)
Clarified by Steve:
----

Q: Spillover fire from automatic road destruction? - Specifically, should friendly units take spillover from a unit in the same hex that is performing automatic road destruction?

Clarification from Steve:
----

Ramming INF with Ogres
Q. Does "ramming" INF count toward the "two rams per turn" limit?
A. No

Clarification from Steve:
---

Q. Can AP guns be used to destroy terrain (auto or otherwise)?
According to 7.05.1, AP guns can be used only against INF and D0 targets. Does that also mean they can't be used for destruction of terrain?
A. Answer unknown

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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?

Quote from the rules:
"A disabled unit cannot fire or move; turn the counter over. If it receives another D result while disabled, it is destroyed."

...the unit is destroyed. It doesn't say the crew is killed and the vehicle is undamaged. It says the unit is destroyed. Which can only happen if the vehicle can also be damaged to the point of then being destroyed. Clearly there is some degree of vehicle damage occurring in a D result other than the crew gets knocked unconscious.
The video game has smoke coming off of D'ed units for example. That implies some degree of damage to the vehicle as well as the crew.

My suggestion was working within that framework to have a D'ed GEV lose it's ability to have its AI attack and also lose it's hovering ability while D'ed. The not hovering portion of the suggestion was really just semantics used to give a plausible explanation for it. Thus, one can ignore that explanation, but the suggestion to have a variant rule for GEVs that are D'ed not be able to use their AI to attack still stands.

If you want to use the variant rule, you can and it changes nothing from the original game because there are still GEVs that use the original rule, in this context the explanation is they would be early Last War GEVs...or even better, lesser skilled GEV Pilots. Then the official GEV Pilots, then the Aces that ignore all D results on them. ;)

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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.

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.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

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...

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I thought it was because in the simple ramming rule the tread damage is supposed to be defensive. If the defender rams in the Overrun (and they might as well) it has the same result, yes?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Maybe, but that logic fails if the ogre is the one defending. In simple ramming rules, the ogre loses treads in _both_ cases. In an overrun, the ogre gets a free pass on a ram; that just doesn't make any sense.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

5.07 Road effects negating terrain.

we've discussed at length that entering a hex with terrain (town, forest, etc) from the edge where a road starts enacts the "along the road" aspect of 5.07, but it's not listed in either the official FAQ or updated in the new draft rules.

two questions:
1. Have we officially answered that is the case (i.e., why isn't it in the FAQ/errata)?
2. When are we going to see an updated FAQ/errata so we know what's been included?

The draft versions attached to this thread are 3 years old.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Ramming is a simplification of an overrun. In an overrun the defending units get to fire first. Defending ogres get to ram. Then the attacker fires. Last attacking ogres get to ram.

The tan-map Ogre ramming rules reflect the outcome of green-map GEV overrun rules very well for GEVs, MSLs, HVYs, and SHVYs. Using green-map rules the ogre would overrun the hex. (No stacking so) the lone armor unit gets one shot at 1:1 - a one-in-three chance of damaging treads. The overrun ends very soon after when that armor unit is either vaporized by every gun on the ogre, or rammed, for no additional damage to the ogre.

The tan map rules assume the defenders would shoot treads, and round (usually up) to the average result. The simpler rules produce nearly identical results (for armor. HWZ are short-changed, INF are merely reduced, but don't do any damage at all.)

I like to introduce the overrun rules before spill-over and terrain as a first step from tan- to green-map rules. It's more fun to roll a die than to just check off a box or three.

(Defending ogres do get to ram with impunity. Better bring an extra tank. Or stay at range. Overrunning an ogre is dangerous.)

Attacking ogres don't get to ram defending units with impunity. All the defenders get to shoot first. That "ram" damage in section 6 is just the lone defender's parting shot.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I can see your point, but it falls down in one place: defending units not only get to fire on the overrunning Ogre, but they get to ram it as well. Now, maybe that's the answer - it's assumed that a single defending armor unit that's overrun will ram the Ogre to do tread damage since it's almost guaranteed to die anyway (3:1 or better is an auto-kill in an overrun, meaning an undamaged Mk II or better auto-kills anything, and an Mk I auto-kills anything under D3). But then you aren't accounting for any possible tread damage from an attack, or that an immobile unit still does the same amount of damage when rammed.

Personally I think the simplest solution is that a ram is a ram is a ram, and any sort of ram does the same amount of damage (other than Ogre/(or SHVY) on Ogre). Thus a defender ramming an Ogre does the same damage as an Ogre ramming a defender, and it doesn't matter if you're using section 6 or section 8 when you do it. But maybe Steve has a better explanation for why it's currently written the way it is.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

13.02.2 has come up again, and it isn't in the FAQ or Errata docs

13.02.2 Results of river bridge destruction. If a river bridge is destroyed, place a “Bridge Out” overlay on it. GEVs can no longer cross the river surface in that hex – and, of course, units cannot cross the river on the destroyed bridge. For movement purposes, all units treat that hex as the worse of swamp or rubble. For defense purposes, the hex is rubble.

What's wrong here and what needs to be clarified is how GEVs interact. I believe the first part about GEVs can no longer cross is misleading and contradictory to the second phrase. It can't both block movement and be swamp to GEVs; it has to be one or the other. I believe the phrase "GEVs can no longer cross the river surface in that hex" should be dropped as it serves no useful function. Having the hex be swamp is sufficiently annoying.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Agreed. I always took "GEVs can no longer cross the river surface in that hex" to mean that they no longer get the road bonus, which is obvious considering GEVs treat it as swamp or rubble. Dropping it makes the rule shorter and more clear.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Errata in rules for beaches.

From 2.01.9:
Beach is treated as ordinary clear terrain for all purposes. Exception: GEVs may move through a beach hexside from land to water, or vice versa, without ending the turn at the edge of the water. If a road or railroad passes through the beach hex, a GEV may move from road/RR to water or vice versa and get a road bonus for that phase, if and only if it passes through the beach hex side.

I would change this to:

From 2.01.9:
Beach is treated as ordinary clear terrain for all purposes. Exception: GEVs may move through a beach hexside from land to water, or vice versa, without ending the turn at the edge of the water. If a road or railroad passes through the beach hex, a GEV may move from road/RR to water or vice versa and get a road bonus for that phase, if and only if the GEV passes through the beach hex side.

it's possible (as evidenced by recent BGG conversations) for this to be misunderstood.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I remember that conversation in the rule edits. That was exactly our intent when we concluded.

The "road-enters-water" GEV ramp is a separate rule, right?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes. It's called a ramp.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Another mounted INF clarification appears to be necessary.

5.11.2 ...If the vehicle + infantry combination is fired on, the attacker makes one die roll for each attack on the combination, but calculates the odds separately for the vehicle and all the infantry and applies the results separately.

One thing that is missing (in the errata or the FAQ) is whether or not the INF that's mounted gets terrain bonuses for defense.

It's arguable that INF defensive bonus comes from their ability to scatter; INF on a tank can't scatter, so they should not get a bonus from the terrain.

However, it's also arguable (and from a KISS perspective, easier) that terrain defensive bonuses should apply in all cases, regardless if the INF is mounted or not.

I can honestly say I'm divided on which way to go with this.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Hmmm.

An INF rides a HVY into a town hex and they're attacked. The HVY is automatically 2x DEF.

The INF is:
A. Normal DEF because it can't scatter.
B. 2x DEF because it's using the cover the HVY found.
C. 3x DEF because it's in a town.

There's a case to be made for each of those options. I'd prefer C for KISS. Having a situation where the INF gets less terrain shelter than the tank it's riding feels wrong to me.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I always vote for KISS, even if it's not strictly realistic.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

B seems the most reasonable to me, and better for future extensions. (For C - the INF have to get off the tank for 3x defense. )

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I should clarify what I originally meant by they can't scatter was "INF can't get their own standard defense bonus from terrain", not "they get no bonus at all".

ie, they should get the defense bonus of the vehicle they are riding (option B).

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I've got another "missing" rule:

Terrain Effects Table errata:

What are the terrain defensive bonuses for static HWZ? It's stated as 2x in 7.14.2 since it falls under "all other units", but it's not actually listed in the terrain chart; mostly because HWZ don't move).

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Rules Errata request:

Change

"8.06 Movement and stacking before overruns"

to

"8.06 Movement and stacking during overruns"

There's a lot of confusion about stacking limits post-overrun because of the poor naming of this section. Seeing "Before" implies there's a different section for "during" or "after." Changing it to "during" should make it more likely for people to find general stacking limit details.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Pulling this thread up to the fore.

Is there any update on the LAD (Light Artillery Drone) rules?

I have the 2016 file that SJG released, but can't see anything recent in the archives in terms of discussion of the unit.

Mainly I'm asking this: If the LAD is set someplace at game beginning, palletized as a potential defensive unit, do you just say "I am activating these now", or do you roll a die for activation (1-3 = no, 4-6 = yes)? Begin the game with them already emplaced and activated? If palletized and they automatically set themselves up, I am thinking that they start setting up on their Turn 1, and can fire on their Turn 2?

Thoughts?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

These are the most current LAD rules: http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/new-units/lad.html

And yep, it looks like you just say "I am activating it" at the beginning of your turn. It will spend that turn unpacking itself. You can fire it next turn. No die roll for activation - a palletized LAD isn't disabled and trying to recover. it's just folded up.

The rules text could probably make this a little clearer, but this is almost certainly how it works - basically steps 2 and 3 of the unloading and setup process.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Leonidas needs help here. I am having an issue with SHVY Tanks. I see that multiple D results have no effect. However, if a SHVY Tank (disabled in the previous turn) gets a disabled result as a side outcome on his optional damage chart (and not on the standard CRT), I should just ignore it? And the SHVY tank will recover as nothing has happened. I understand that multiple or subsequent D results on CRT do not are ignored and the SHVY tank will recover based on the timing of the first D result. However, a disabled status on the optional damage chart can happen only after a X result which allows to do the second roll on the optional damage chart. Are these situations always treated the same?

Second issue about troop transport. I am wondering if it would make more sense if the INF could dismount the vehicle on any adjacent hex, and then stop. Any thoughts on this?

Many thanks.

Leonidas

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Not quite following what you are asking about the SHVY. I think you are saying you are using Optional rule 13.07 for partial damage? If that's the case, then yes; a second Disabled result against an already disabled SHVY has no effect, regardless where that second D result came from. The important part is "D results don’t combine into an X."

As for the INF dismounting; INF are able to dismount at any time during the transport's movement, as long as the INF have not also mounted in the same turn. There is nothing that says INF have to ride a unit its full movement before dismounting; they can get off at any point.

From a scale perspective, think about how having them dismount to an adjacent hex would allow too much movement. They could ride a SHVY for 3 hexes, then dismount into a fourth hex, effectively doubling their movement. That also means they would be jumping an additional 1.5km away from the unit they were riding, which doesn't make sense. Dismounting is meant to be "getting off the unit in the same hex" which is a lot more reasonable; especially since dismounting takes all their movement for the turn to do it.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Thank you very much. You understood my issue correctly, despite my poor English.

Maybe something on 13.07 colud be added to clarify that a second disable on the SHVY has no effect, notwithstanding the source (CRT OR optional damage table) and will not delay the SHVY’s recover in any way.
But maybe it’s just me having hard time to deal with it.

Thank you also for the clarification on the INF trasport. You are right, and I used the rule right. it’s just that I love marines, and I wanted to boost them up a little bit.

Thanks again. It’s the second time I am having isdues with the SHVY, but I wanted to be extra sure!

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Using the optional rules for the SHVY does complicate things; it's not just you trying to interpret the rules. :-) The easiest way to remember it is if you think of the partial damage SHVY like a mini-ogre. It's possible to disable the unit, but multiple disables won't kill it (in other words, to kill it, you _need_ an X just like an Ogre).

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Its been a few years, and I cant recall seeing an update to the Ogre: Designer Edition Rule book. (An actual update of the PDF rule book would be great, or at least an Errata/FAQ sheet)

I was reminded of this when I got a notice from W23 of an updated "Scenario Book 2" a few days ago.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

There's a PDF with updated rules buried in a KS update from earlier this year in conjunction with some of the recent Minis projects.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Do you mean the OM Set 2 update from here? That's for the Battle Box rules. It should cover all of the ODE stuff, but I haven't gone through it to verify that it does.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

It does. It is specifically meant to be the next edition of the full rules.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Two quick questions:

A) Can howitzers intercept cruise misdles?
B) Can cruise missiles fly over crateers in the Ogre map?

My guesses are:

A) Yes
B) No

Any advice is more than welcome.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I am sorry. Another question please!

During overrun combat, INF attack value is doubled for eack infividual squad. Doesn’t this mean that if INF targets Ogre’s threads it does double damage?

Many thanks.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes

How about this one: In overrun combat can a 3INF stack combine fire against ogre treads? I think no - all INF fight separately.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes. But not remarkably well:

Any armor unit with attack strength 3 or more ........ 11 or above

Yes. Weapons can shoot over craters.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

A) Yes. Any armor unit may try to intercept a Cruise Missile. The chance to do so is dependent upon the attack strength of the unit, which is modified based upon the distance the CM has traveled.

B) Yes. Terrain has no effect on flying Cruise Missiles. (Cruise Missile Crawlers, on the other hand, cannot enter/cross a crater)

Yes. It still has the same chance to hit (i.e. roll a 5 or 6), but if successful, the squad does double damage.

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

You are correct. All Infantry are divided into 1-squad counters at the start of an overrun.

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I screwed this one last week, then (I combined fire on threads form INF in overrun combat on threads, damn).

Many thanks for your answers!

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

It really doesn't change the expected outcome unless the ogre has two or three (or three-to-six in an overrun) treads to go before it drops to the next M.

Single-INF shots blur out a run of bad luck better, but that's just a stats class filtered through my superstition.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Infantry can still combine attacks in an overrun; they just can't combine defense in an overrun, right?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

No - in an overrun, it's every squad for themselves. This also means they have to be targeted separately, which permits a 3/1 INF to survive attacking something that gets less than 3 shots first. Of course, even a Mk I can hit 5 separate INF targets if undamaged, so it's still low-percentage move until you defang it...

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes.

Incorrect.

At the end of 8.04 - "Units can combine fire, or fire in succession on one target, just as in a regular attack, as long as no unit fires more than once per fire round."

Defense *is* every unit for themselves, though. For example, each INF squad is an individual; they can't combine for a defensive bonus.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

However, INF in 1/1 squads cannot combine the attack on Ogre threads!

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Which is covered by "Units can combine fire, or fire in succession on one target, just as in a regular attack." Under normal conditions, INF can't combine fire on treads, either. You are thinking about how you can have a 3/1 INF attack treads, but that's only because they can be defined as a 3/1 INF. You can't, for example, combine two 3/1 INF.

All tread attacks are individual attacks, always. It just happens that in an overrun, all INF are single squads.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Thanks. This is how I understood it in the end. What a game! I am on vacation but I always have the 6th edition (minimum) with me for cuttling and solo play.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

You need to pick up a copy of the Pocket Edition. It's officially OOP, but there are frequently copies on the secondary market. Much more portable!

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Are you sure? I thought that while it is inadvisable to combine attacks on treads, it's not impermissible to do so.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Thanks for the tip but I could not live without a pocked edition. I bought it last year. It is perfect for the beach! I think I made a post in Ogre in Italy.

Ok. I’ll stop derailing. I have anothe question, please.

What happens to standard howitzers D1 if deployed in a town hex? Do they become D2?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes. Any armor unit has it's defense doubled in a Town.

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Yes.

Single units can’t combine attacks. INF are a bit of a special case as the squads (up to three) are considered a single unit. So you can have 1,2 or 3 squads in the same hex fire together. You can’t have more than three combine, though.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

You are correct. I found the citation:
We have always played it this way because it makes sense statistically speaking, but I never realized it was in the rules.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

While I know this is true for normal attacks, does it still apply in an overrun where individual squads are considered separate units? I always assumed that it didn't. Then again, I always do individual INF attacks against treads anyway, so it's never really come up for me...

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

No, it's a normal attack thing only. It's a carryover from the fact you can have 3 squads grouped together. In an overrun, that's no longer the case, so each 1-squad is a discreet unit and each attacks individually.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Ok I am talking about the links in the first post of this thread.

The items you were referencing is in a Kickstarter for Ogre Minitures. And apparently only backers of THAT kickstarter can access it. (I only backed the Original big Ogre Designer's Edition.)

So my question still remains,
Was there ever an update to the:
Ogre Designer's Edition - Rules Update v. 1.01 - 21 June 2014.pdf
or even better and update to the ODE Rules manual to include the updated rules.

Sorry for the delay in responding to the replies.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Here is the latest, most up-to-date, definitive rule set. This takes the Ogre Designer's Edition rulebook, corrects the errata, and adds all of the new material.

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I can't recall where I snagged it, but the "Battle Box" rules are now available online, and are the latest and greatest revision to all the rulebooks.

[whoops, ninja'd by the Line Editor hisself!]

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

So does that mean we should start working on the new versions of the errata/rules docs? :-)

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Actually, yes.

I'm under no illusions that it is completely perfect. We've added way too much new material for there not to be at least the possibility of some overlooked fringe case that was missed. I think we've covered everything, but I won't be shocked to find out I'm wrong.

We will be printing this rulebook again for Battlefields. That gives us another opportunity to correct anything y'all find. We constantly strive to be better; if you all can help us do so, great!

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Fantastic! Thanks Wolf that's perfect.

Later,
BlackHat

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Thank you for doing this guys.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

I see a 3d cardboard radar dish; rules 3.06.

Was there a 3d radar dish? What counter sheet was that?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

It's not out yet.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Hi Drew, is the link to the rule book going to be updated on the Ogre Resources page?
http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/resources/

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

(face palm)

Yep.

D.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

A couple of things to ponder with all the new additions in ODE.

Now that there are rules for reloading Ogre external missiles, should there be a different notation for fired external missiles vs. destroyed external missiles?

Easy enough to put a house rule in, but should it be explicitly written out in the rulebook?

In a campaign type scenarios, shooting at empty missile tubes might be worth doing to further hamper an enemy Ogre? If so what would be the defense factor for an empty external missile tube?

Secondly with the advent of record sheets for superheavy tanks and other specialized units with 1 shot special firing capabilities and other capabilities (here's looking at you Marine Engineers) , is it time to add unique identifiers (i.e. a number like 101) to counters in a future printing?

How do folks distinguish superheavy tanks and other units now?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

When I play with Mk 1s, which have the same problem, I tend to go with "the one on the left flank", "the one in the middle" and "the one on the right flank."

Probably not scalable to an entire company though. :)

This is where the numbered counters would come in handy.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Good question! Vulcans have been around for a few years...denoting 'Fired' vs 'Destroyed' has always been left up to the individual groups of players to decide what their standard is rather than writing some sort of official rules. I haven't been put in that position yet [no Vulcans :( ], but would personally put an X or a / (depending on how fine the tip of the marker is) in boxes to denote 'Fired', and filling in the box to denote 'Destroyed'...so that it's easy enough to change the mark from one to the other with no ambiguity over which is which. Another thing that keeps ambiguity down and makes the bookkeeping easier...cross off Fired from left to right, and Destroyed from right to left [unless the opponent specifically targets an empty tube], that way you can tell at a glance how many of each [plus how many intact] there are.

For tracking specific units I was lucky enough to get my hands on the Black Rose counter set from ODE, all of which have a name. In situations where I absolutely have to be able to tell them apart [such as fielding a swarm of superheavies with partial damage rules], I'll use those counters to remove ambiguity.

Since that's not an option for everybody, and if I ever end up in a situation where both sides have a swarm like that...I'd get a bunch of sharpies or highlighters in different colors, and color in the edges of the counters. That way on the partial damage sheets I could write "Red", "Blue", "Green", etc. Also prevents the headaches of having to write on already-tight counters, or the potential that the writing [or daub of paint, or whatever] would wear off over time.

HWTs have a 'fired' status on the reverse. Can't swap them straight-up for a 1/1 infantry counter because of tracking VP of units destroyed, but it's easy enough to put the HWT Fired counter under an Infantry counter to note which one it's moving with.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Same either way. The D value is on the launcher, not the missile itself.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

(There's nothing like receiving a new supplement, Ogre Mini Set 2, to get you back into a shelved game.)

Rules Question:

Is a unit that is disabled due to terrain destroyed when it receives its first 'D' combat result?

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Per the rules, yes. Note that Ogres aren't disabled by terrain, but can get Stuck; the difference is intentional.

Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
 

Hey, thanks for the reply.

From my reading, I thought the rules could be a little ambiguous.

Referring to the latest Ogre Battle Box Web Rules:

Page 16 indicates that the destruction occurs "if it receives another D result while disabled." "Another D" could imply the first disable needed to be combat result induced.

Also, the bottom of page 11 reinforces the fact that in general how a unit becomes disabled may matter.

Note: I use my original Designer Edition rules, but noted that the above references did not change between the versions.