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

It's not ambiguous; a "D" is a "D", regardless of where it comes from. The game does not make a distinction between disabled by an attack vs disabled by terrain; the resulting disable is identical. "if it receives another D result while disabled" means if it was disabled by terrain, a second D from an attack will kill it. It does not imply that the first D has to come from combat.

The whole point is if you risk disabling a unit by driving it into dangerous terrain, it is more likely to be destroyed by an attack on the following turn.

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

Clever engineers can make one part do several things at once in a machine. SJ's game rules are much the same.

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

More and more, it does appear that the intent is that being disabled by terrain does make a unit vulnerable to a 'D' combat result. (I checked the Ogre Miniature rules for comparison, and while not unambiguous, it seems to align more.)

To me, there is a condition named "disabled." I regard a 'D' specifically as a combat result code that may generate a disable.

There is at least a distinction in the type of disable for purposes of recovery from the condition.

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

The distinction only exists with regards to how a unit recovers. How a unit is disabled does make a difference. While in a disabled state there is no distinction in how it handles combat results.

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

That is true; you do have to know if it was combat or terrain related for purposes of recovery (terrain recovery is done via a roll, combat recovery is automatic), but for purposes of combat results (what you are asking about), they are identical.

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

How also matters for When. A little edge case I discovered while playtesting a scenario: It's entirely possible for a SHVY to disable itself during its owner's movement phase (due to suffering a 1-1 attack when it rams, instead of taking tread damage / being destroyed outright), which brought into clear focus why the wording is "after a full enemy turn" and not "lose your next turn".

If it was "lose your next turn", a SHVY that disables itself ramming is subject to two unanswered attacks by the opponent, not one (as is the intent of the rule -edit)

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

That's not just a SHVY ramming thing, that applies to ANY unit disabled during the owning player's turn. A unit disabled by terrain falls under the same category (i.e., becoming disabled during the owning player's movement phase).

The basic intent of a unit being disabled is to give the opposing player _one_ full turn to have an opportunity to take advantage of it being disabled (i.e., shoot at a disabled unit, which is an easier kill).

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

I can see where you are going with this, but you are over-thinking it. It is true that "a D" is a result on the CRT and does not strictly represent "disabled," but receiving a "D" results in the unit being disabled so the _effective_ equality of D = disabled exists.

Each attack is discreet. It's more about how an individual attack's results are applied to a unit in a particular state at the time of that attack. A unit that is undamaged that receives a D becomes disabled. That same unit (that is now disabled) is attacked again and receives a D result is destroyed. This is identical to the case where a unit that is already disabled is attacked.

The intent is that any disabled unit (regardless of how it was initially disabled) that receives a "D" on a combat roll is destroyed. The phrase "another D" is a shorthand for "a disabled unit receives a D result on the CRT," not literally only "a second D result on the CRT."

It seems the simplest fix to this is to replace "another" with "a"

A disabled unit cannot fire or move; turn the counter over. If it receives a D result while disabled, it is destroyed.

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

[See below. I had it right, got confused by the correction, and made the problem worse by over-thinking it. This post has nothing of value.]

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

Movement is movement, and combat is combat. Rams happen during movement (even overrun rams are during movement), don't confuse the issue. :-)

It's actually irrelevant in any case. What's important is _when_ it occurs. Regardless of it being during your movement phase or your firing phase, it still happens during your _turn_. The only thing that matters is the "after a full turn" before it recovers. The net result is the same, even if you try to muddy the waters nitpicking over whether a ram is combat or not (which it isn't).

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

So I had it right, worded it poorly, got confused by the correction, made the problem worse by overthinking it, and now we're back to where we started.

Yup, it's Monday.

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

You got that right. Monday the 13th; that's a thing, right? :-)

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

If it isn't, it should be! ;)

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

Yes, I agree.

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

That sounds good.

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

I'll drop this here.

I just noticed that in the Battle Box Rules (Page 26, on both PDF and printed versions), on the SHVY record sheet, the text says 2 AP, yet the artwork shows four check boxes.

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

That is the miniatures version of the SHVY after conversion to inches . . .

Sorry for being a wise *ss. That looks like a good observation.

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

I was thinking it was just the marketing materials to sell the SHVY as being more powerful than it really is... :P

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

That's what we need, a more-powerful SHVY.

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

Oh, I totally agree. But can't you just see whoever was building the original SHVY doing a dog-and-pony show for the brass, showing that picture and saying, "It's our answer to the Mark I. We added a second main gun to compensate for the lack of AI, which should make up for those deficiencies." And then later, when it actually goes into production, "Well, it turns out that we really needed a full AI to handle that many guns, so we had to strip off 2 of the AP to make it all work..." :)

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

What nobody knows is that the project that ended up as the SHVY started as a GEV-PC sometime prior to the Battle of Montreal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

:D

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

I don't even have to look at that clip to know it's from Pentagon Wars. :D

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

Same here, ColBosch!

My regular Ogre opponent worked for FMC at that time -- he says if you mentioned that movie at work, bad things happened to your career.

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

I couldn't find answers to these questions in the rulebook:

1. Can you ram an armor unit protected by a revetment? If so, what effect (if any) does the revetment have on ramming?

2. How many times can a Superheavy Tank ram in a single turn?

3. Rule 6.01.1 says an Ogre can ram "up to two non-Ogre units per turn" while rule 6.02 says that when ramming "If the armor unit is not destroyed, the Ogre may expend one more movement point, stay in that hex, and ram again." Does ramming the same armor unit twice in a row count as ramming one non-Ogre unit or two?

I'm guessing the answers might be as follows:

1. Yes, but it costs an extra movement point to ram a unit in revetment (as is the case with an Ogre reducing infantry in an entrenchment).

2. Since the rules say a Superheavy Tank rams "as if it were an Ogre Mark I" I assume it can ram up to two non-Ogre units a turn if it has the movement points to do so.

3. I always assumed ramming the same unit twice in the same turn counted as ramming two non-Ogre units (no further rams allowed).

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

There's nothing special about a Revetment in the rules; all it does is add a D2. There are no movement penalties, etc defined. It's not even stated that you have to drive in from a specific direction (eg, the "back"). The only distinction made about that is for LOS. Ram as usual.

I'm also not sure where you are getting the "Ogre reducing INF in an entrenchment comment costing an extra movement," there's nothing like that in the rules that I can find. What rules are you looking at? An Ogre is not going to care about a ditch.

6.07.1 refers specifically only to 6.05 and 6.08 when it describes "as if it were an Ogre Mark I." Neither of these has anything to do with ramming multiple units. Specifically, it does NOT reference 6.01.1. A SHVY gets only one ram.

Correct. The intent of the wording is to limit the number of consecutive rams against non-ogre units. Whether that is two separate units, or the same unit twice doesn't matter; they are the same thing.

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

It’s in 15.03.05: “For scenarios using the Ogre map, i.e., ramming rules instead of overrun rules, entrenched infantry are not reduced when an Ogre first enters their hex. The Ogre may spend an additional MP to remain in the hex and reduce the infantry normally.” Based on this precedent, it seems likely a revetment would have a similar effect.

I don’t agree. While it’s true that rule 6.01.1 is not referenced neither is rule 6.02, 6.03, or 6.04 all of which (probably) apply to the SHVY as well. In the absence of a specific rule stating the SHVY is limited to a single ram, I would say 6.01.1 applies.

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

This is a tough call, because they are dissimilar types of protection; one does not necessarily set a precedent for the other. What really needs to be understood is whether the Ogre is driving over, or through, the revetment in order to ram. This could definitely use some clarification. However, as currently written, revetments do not affect ramming.

One thing that has been very clear over the years is that if the rules do not say it can, then it can't. The "specific ruling" is the non-inclusion of 6.01.1 in 6.07.1. Of 6.02, 6.03 and 6.04; the "ram as an ogre" does not apply for the following reasons (and is also why 6.05 and 6.08 _are_ explicitly called out):

6.02 - is specifically "Ogres ramming armor units." This does not apply because 6.07.1 exists; which calls out explicitly what a SHVY does when ramming.

6.03 - Ramming CPs and Buildings - again, is not called out because SHVYs are explicitly defined within it. The table in 6.03 states how a SHVY behaves while ramming, which is explicitly a different line item than how an Ogre behaves.

6.04 - Movement after ramming - The omission of this in 6.07.1 points out yet another limitation of how a SHVY is not an Ogre; it gets only one ram per turn because 6.04 is NOT included in 6.07.1

The rules are being very particular when defining what "ram as an Ogre" means. If they had left the explicit callouts out of 6.07.1, then there would be room for interpretation to be more broad; but the fact they picked only those two (6.05 and 6.08), excluding the rest, is significant and means the rest do not apply.

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

6.02 has to apply because 6.07.01 doesn’t explain what effect a SHVY ramming attack has on the target (If the target is not an Ogre).

Actually, CPs are not referenced on the table. It wouldn’t make any sense for a SHVY to do “2 dice” damage to a CP since CPs don’t take damage that way.

6.04 is not about how many ramming attacks you get (that’s 6.01.1) it’s about whether the SHVY can continue to move after ramming, something which is not addressed in 6.07.1

I think your reading too much into the callouts. And, as I said above, there isn’t even a way to resolve a SHVY ramming attack without using 6.02 nor is there a way to resolve an attack against a CP without the text from 6.03 neither of which is referenced in 6.07.1

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

OK, in this case I do agree, section 6.02 (and 6.02.1, assuming the SHVY has AP guns) should have been referenced in 6.07.1 along with 6.05. I'm not sure 6.08 needs to be referenced, as it comes after, but it does specify Ogres so making it apply to SHVYs as well is at least rational.

Technically, CPs could also be covered by 6.02 as immobile armor units. But since SHVYs ram as Mk Is, 6.03 is covered by inference.

OK, I'm going to agree that this should be an errata. The line about losing treads as a Mk I when using the advanced SHVY rules implies that an (advanced) SHVY moves and rams as an Ogre, with all the "rights and responsibilities" thereof. That said, just because it implies that, doesn't mean it's correct. Not to mention, a SHVY that rams only has a 33% chance of surviving unscathed. I think there needs to be an official ruling about this, but I would suggest for simplicity that SHVYs (advanced or otherwise) be limited to 1 ram per turn, and possibly end its movement after ramming one way or another. If you need a real-world rationale, it's all the crew can handle.

While I (again) agree that a reference to 6.02(.1) is missing, the explicit callout/lack of callout when dealing with exceptions is a long-standing practice with the Ogre rules, and should generally be followed until there's an errata/clarification provided. And when all else fails, use common sense - Ogres can ram multiple times because the don't care about the collisions; SHVYs have human crews who can only take so much impact in a short period of time. Thus, I say SHVYs get 1 ram, Ogres get 2.

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

Since the SHVY suffers a 1:1 attack when it rams, I think the situation you're describing would correspond to a "D" result (which results from the crew needing time to recover from the impact). In the case of an "NE" I believe the SHVY should be able to ram again if it has the movement points ("no effect" should mean what it says).

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

I concur with dsal here.

The SHVY caveat can be "the SHVY is like an ogre," instead of "the SHVY is special in this other way, too."

That 1:1 is a severe disincentive. An X is the end of the SHVY. A D means that disabled SHVY will not be shooting or ramming anything next turn, and will draw a lot of fire if there are enemy units around to take advantage.

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

OK, I see your points and don't disagree. In fact, I think that the solution to this is actually even simpler. Just remove the parentheses at the end of the first sentence of 6.07.1 (see 6.05, 6.08). By eliminating the callout, you simply state that SHVYs ram as though they were a Mk I, which implies that other than anything explicitly stated differently in the rest of the section, all other 6.XX rules that apply to a Mk I also apply to a SHVY. Meaning that it has the same rules other than the addition of suffering a 1-1 attack on itself when it's the attacker, and the rule about mounted infantry dying automatically rather than by die roll*. Which is probably what the intent was all along. (In fact, that actually makes the first sentence of the second paragraph of 6.07.1 unnecessary, though the second paragraph still is.)

* Upon re-reading 6.01.2, it's clear as mud exactly what's being discussed. Vehicles that ram while carrying INF don't suffer a die roll against them EXCEPT for SHVYs, therefore there is no die roll to affect the vehicle and INF per 5.11.2 (and said die roll is irrelevant for SHVYs as the INF die automatically). Not to mention INF riding on non-Ogres are explicitly covered in each of 6.07.X. So 6.01.2 only applies to INF riding Ogres. Which do suffer N dice of damage to treads, but there's no attack roll to apply to the INF. So the rule doesn't really make any sense. I'm not quite sure how to fix it, especially since I would say that INF riding on an Ogre should be a bit better protected than those riding on smaller vehicles - especially the big Ogres. Perhaps each squad takes a 1-2 attack with separate die rolls, giving a 33% chance of killing each individual squad? It's a corner case in any event, but the rule as written doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something?

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

There was a long discussion earlier about how to handle INF riding ramming Armor. I'll have to see if I can find it (it eludes me at the moment). That might give some clarity to the intent.

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

“3.02.2 Heavy Weapons Teams (HWT). Specialist battlesuit
squads. An infantry squad armed with a portable one-shot missile.
Each Heavy Weapons Team may make a single “heavy weapon
attack” at Attack Strength 3 and Range 4. Once this attack is made,
flip the counter to its “Fired” side. The heavy weapon may not be
fired while mounted (5.11.1) or on the turn the Heavy Weapons
Team dismounts (this is an exception to 5.11.3). The heavy weapon
attack does not double in overruns.

A Heavy Weapons Team has an inherent Attack 1 at Range 1,
which can be used both before and after firing the heavy weapon.
Treat this like a regular infantry attack. This inherent attack cannot
be used in any Fire Phase or overrun fire round where the heavy
weapon attack is used.

Heavy Weapons Teams are deployed in special scenarios.
Players can mutually agree to allow Heavy Weapons Teams in other
scenarios, by trading regular infantry for Heavy Weapons Teams at a
2 to 1 ratio; for example, 10 regular infantry might be exchanged for
five Heavy Weapons Teams. As specialist infantry, Heavy Weapons
Teams are worth double victory points (i.e., 4 VP per squad). Other
than as mentioned above, a Heavy Weapons Team should be treated
as infantry in all other circumstances.

Heavy Weapons Teams may re-arm from either a stocked CP
depot, or a Truck or Hovertruck carrying “Heavy Weapons Team
missiles.” They need to begin and spend one full turn in the same
hex as the reload source without firing. Each additional missile
would cost 1 VP each for unit selection and victory calculation. A
Heavy Weapons Team may carry only one heavy weapon missile at a
time. A Truck or Hovertruck may carry up to 10 missiles, or up to five
if a squad rides in the Truck at the same time. Players may receive
one regular Truck for “free” per 10 missiles (or fraction thereof)
purchased, if they so desire. A Hovertruck would cost 2 VP each for
unit selection and victory calculation (in addition to the missile
costs). Reduce the number of “free” wheeled Trucks available by
one for each Hovertruck purchased. Armor units and other types
of infantry may not carry heavy weapon missiles due to the large
protective casing within which they are transported. Heavy weapon
missiles may not be attacked individually, but are destroyed if the
Truck or CP is destroyed.

3.02.3 Marine Heavy Weapons Teams (HWTM). Specialist
battlesuit squads. Marine Heavy Weapons Teams are treated for all
purposes like regular Heavy Weapons Teams, except that they move
and attack equally well on land and water, and have double defense
in water hexes. The heavy weapon attack is uniquely designed to be
effective in both air and water. Marine Heavy Weapons Teams may
use their heavy weapon attack on either surface or submerged units
without penalty. Unlike regular Heavy Weapons Teams, they may
re-arm from Hovertrucks on the water, as per the re-arming rules
above. Marine Heavy Weapons Teams cost 6 VP per squad, (or 3× the
cost of regular infantry.)”

The above rules are copied from the Battlefields Rulebook posted here at SJGames.

They raise a couple of questions.

1. As Marine Heavy Weapons can be used against submerged targets and normal Heavy Weapons can not be used against submerged targets, do you need to keep track of the reloads separately if you buy both types of HW Teams? Or is the extra capacity assumed to be part of the suits and thus a HW Reload will work for either type of HW Team?

2. Rule 3.02.02 does not have a note about HW Teams not being able to rearm from Hover Trucks on the water. Rule 3.02.03 says that Marine HW teams can rearm from Hover Trucks on the water unlike regular HW Teams. Rule 3.02.02 should have this note added to it as it might be missed by someone that does not read up on the Marine HW teams.

3. Also “on the water” should be better defined. I am assuming that if a Hover Truck is carrying a HW Team and some reload missiles while on the water that the HW Team can pick up some reloads. But that if the HW Team is on the water separate from a Hover Truck in the same hex they cannot re-arm. By Rules As Written, though a HW Team riding on a Hover Truck on water could not re-arm. Was that the intention?

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

Would it be possible to get the newest version of the Quick Reference sheet here? The one that downloads for me only has sub headings a and b, under Section 2. Movement Phase, in the Turn Sequence boxed text.

I think this is the best place to ask this, if I am mistaken, my apologies in advance.

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

Hey I'm heading out to MO in November. Are you anywheres near Fenton?

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

Unfortunately, no. I have a farm between Springfield and Joplin.

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

While ADM isn't, I am near Fenton, maybe about 12 miles, tops.

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

Not sure if this is the best place to post this but for lack of a better alternative I will post it here and in the minis section of the forums.

My questions pertain to OGRE Minis, using the 2nd edition rulebook.

1) Is there any situation, be it overrun combat or normal combat, where an AP weapon on a SUPH or OGRE (or other possible platforms/mounts) automatically fires before any other weapon or unit? A player in my club insists that APs ALWAYS fire first, allowing no return fire from any unit eliminated by the AP, regardless of the type of combat, and regardless of whether they are the attacker or defender. Please set this straight for us.

2)Do the overrun rules apply to OGREs and SUPHvys in the same way as ALL other vehicles and INF with a few exceptions for rams and INF breaking down into squads for overrun?

3) Is there ANY circumstance in an overrun where ANY attacking unit will/would fire first?

4) Do OGRE overruns have their own rules or do they use the same ones as everyone else? I know somewhat redundant but I am trying to answer all dissenting views.

5) Looking at the pic on page 33 seems to imply that an OGRE can never be involved in an overrun on it's turn unless it wants to be? As the INF on the side is not close enough to the conning tower to be within an inch for an overrun if the defender called for a template check. Is this correct for that size model and what about other sizes and shapes. Is there a clear ruling on each size or is it model by model?

6) Does the attacker initiate the overrun as it says on page 32, or can the defender just move out of the way if it doesn't want to be overrun?

7) Are OGREs limited to attacking INF with AP only or can they use any weapon against INF?

8) Can INF only get into an overrun with an OGRE on the INF turn? Or can INF be overrun by an OGRE on the OGREs turn?

9) Is the OGRE ALWAYS the defender in an overrun?

10) Can you give me any other clarifications or errata for oveerrus involving INF and OGREs or just OGREs or anyhting at all?

Thanks to whoever at the Company has time for this.

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

Hey there! I'm not an employee of SJG, but I will try to answer your questions. I'm more familiar with the hex-and-counter rules, but I have also played Ogre Miniatures.

No, and I've never heard of this. See the Sequencing and Targeting sections on page 28, and Multiple Attacks on page 30. Can that player actually cite anywhere in the rulebook that mentions AP firing first?

Yes, as far as I can tell.

No. See Resolving an Overrun Attack, page 33.

Other than what you noted above, Ogres use the same rules. See Ogres in Overrun Combat, page 33.

It's the distance between units (measured from unit center to unit center), not unit size. See Range, page 28.

No. "An overrun attack occurs during the movement phase. The moving (attacking) player initiates an overrun combat ...." Page 32.

Any weapon. See Combining Attacks, page 29.

Yes to both.

Not if it initiates the overrun during its movement phase.

Not sure what you're looking for; my interpretation of the rules is that any unit that moves close enough to another unit commits an overrun.

It seems like the player you mention has a unique interpretation of the rules. When in doubt, I always check the rule text first.

Again, I'm not with the company, but I hope this helps. If I have gotten some rules wrong, hopefully others will be along to set me straight.

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

I concur with DS's interpretation.

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

[QUOTE=Desert Scribe;2495152]Hey there! I'm not an employee of SJG, but I will try to answer your questions. I'm more familiar with the hex-and-counter rules, but I have also played Ogre Miniatures.

Thanks for your time and answers Desert Scribe. I was clear with and agree with all your answers, I just wanted an outside view for that player so he can see that my interpretation of the rules is the one that other players outside of our club are using as well. Thanks for the time. See me at MillenniumCon at the Arlington Gaming Company vendor booth. I make and sell terrain.

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

The only clarification I'd make to these is for #5

Any defending unit that is being overrun has no choice in the matter; it will be involved. What is not clearly illustrated in that picture is how the units that are being moved into the overrun are defined. The only thing this image is meant to show is how if units are not close enough, they cannot be part of the overrun. What it does not show is that when starting an overrun, the attacking player initiates an overrun by moving an number of units into the overrun before starting to resolve it. Just because 3 of the 4 INF are not _currently_ close enough, that does not mean they can not be moved closer if they have movement available before starting to resolve the overrun. On page 32:
The template check you are talking about also comes from page 32.
What this is talking about is NOT whether the defending unit can avoid an overrun or not; it's actually checking to see if the attacking player _accidentally_ moved too close and started an overrun. Remember, the defending player has a significant advantage in overruns, so calling for a template check is a way to sucker a lone unit into a bloodbath against its will when all it wanted to do is move past the defending unit. Overruns are almost ALWAYS bad for the attacking unit and should be used as a last resort.