Soft announcement: new Ogre set!

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Hi, all. Thank you for the feedback. Sorry to have been absent so long - I managed to come down with pneumonia, and I'm still recuperating (still weak as a kitten and only slightly brighter).

But slooooowly, things move forward.

Ick. Definitely remember health is more important than deadlines. We will still be here.

[Steve Jackson]

NEW VERSION -

This 12-page PDF includes all art corrections, many text corrections resulting from your comments on the last version, and a more compact layout. The remaining empty space will be turned into art and (probably) one ad. This may start as soon as next week, if Sam and I can just get better.

See a typo or other error? Post it. Thanks.

[JLV]

Read through and can't find any issues to correct. You may have actually reached "perfect rules;" a zen state only previously imagined by philosophers and crazy hermits living in mushrooms... ;-)

[HeatDeath]

Page 1, Table of Contents - Section 2 is still referred to as "Maps" here when it is "Map" in the actual section.

Page 1, Table of Contents - The sequencing on Combat, Example of Play, CRT, and Optional Rules is awkward. Within the actual document, the order of the sections is Combat, Example of Play, Optional Rules, CRT. I understand the imperative to place CRT as the bottom item on the last page, but that would appear to place it within the Optional Rules section. I would consider exchanging the positions of Example of Play and the Optional Rules + Record Sheets section. that way all of the numbered sections are together with 13.00 following 7.00, then Example of Play, Acknowledgements, then the CRT.

Page 1, Game Components - Counters: I haven't seen the countersheet yet, but I suspect that at least some of "The red/gray units" are Combine GEVs, and not Ogres, especially since the Ogres are most likely "3-D Counter", and are therefore described in the next bullet point.

Page 1, Section Numbering sidebar: Technically, this set (comprising everything in the box) is not a subset of the ODE rules. Only a set of rules can be a subset of another set of rules. I might word it "This rules set, as far as possible..."

1.03: "... the scenarios in this section are good for solo play." There are no scenarios in any other section in this boxed set. I might reword it "these scenarios are good for solo play".

1.04 "... the balance on the starting scenarios takes this into account." No distinction is made, that I can see, dividing the scenarios into "Starting", or any other category. Maybe reword it "The 'Mark III Attack' and the Mark III version of the 'GEV Escort' scenarios"?

Page 4, Ogre Defending scenario: It is not immediately clear to me what "infantry equal to half the attacker's force" means. Veteran players will know that a 3-strength infantry piece is one Armor Unit, but that will not be evident to a new player reading this. I would restate the hard numbers from the Mark III and Mark V Attack scenarios and specify exactly how much infantry the defender gets in each case.

2.00.3: Unless space is at an absolute premium, it may be worthwhile to warn players about the possibility of certain adhesives staining the mapboard, and to test appropriately in an inconspicuous spot.

2.02.1: The ridgeside artwork is not actually a "heavy black marking". "thick line of visible debris" might be more descriptive.

3.01: "stats which give its capabilities". "Describe" might be more accurate than "give" here, but it's basically a stylistic choice.

Page 5 - Howitzer: "non-self-propelled" seems awkward. "Stationary", "Fixed", or "Permanently emplaced" might be better. "Immobile" might be particularly good, since the Howitzer is described using that word in 6.02/

Page 5 - GEV: Terrain doesn't actually affect GEVs any differently than any other unit on this map, and you have already called out their extreme mobility. I would omit the sentence, including the parenthetical insert about water.

I note, on page 5 and at the top of page 6, that we are getting our first visuals of the Combine color scheme. Very nice! The Mark IIIs having different colored sensor spheres is a nice touch.

Page 6 - Ogre types playable in this game: I might use the word "included" instead of "playable", and possibly take the opportunity to call out the other types of Ogres included in ODE.

Page 6 - Ogre types playable in this game - Mark V: Is "Huscarl" the proper name of the occupation of Great Britain? I might reword the sentence "Paneurope also built large numbers of Mark V units after they occupied Great Britain, calling them Huscarl, after the Anglo-Danish warriors that served as the guards and professional soldiers of the late Anglo-Saxon kings of England." Definition from here.
You may want to source your own.

4.01: You may wish to avoid gendered langauge here. Not all Ogre players are male, though to be fair, the vast majority are.

4.02 - 4. Second (GEV) movement phase: I might put a "See 5.05" here, just to make it very clear from even a first read that GEVs don't move 4 hexes in their second movement phase.

4.02 - Notes: A unit can be disabled by enemy fire, or by being rammed, but does this have any impact on when it recovers? I do not think so. [disregard if I'm misremembering th recovery rules here.] Players of this particular set need to keep track of when a unit is disabled, but not necessarily how. Either way, italicizing "necessary" may be overselling the point.

7.01: The first movement phase is not previously referred to as "the regular movement phase". I might replace the word "regular" with "first".

7.11: "If it becomes disabled on an enemy turn..." Is it even possible for a unit to be disabled on its own player's turn in this rule set?

7.13: "either one specific weapon..." Technically, when you attack an Ogre, you designate a target weapon type as a target. "I target a SB gun", as opposed to "I target the second SB gun on the port side." I would insert the word "type" after "weapon".

Page 11 - Example of Play: Would it be worth formatting this as a numbered section, rather than as a sidebar?

Page 11 - Example of Play - Paragraph 4: "he". More gendered language here. Just sayin'.

This represents the results of a good first pass. A definite improvement from the last iteration!

[sgbeal]

3.04.02, p. 6 sidebar/sidebox:

"Ogre types playable in this game:" suggests that other models (if the player has them) are somehow incompatible. i suggest "Ogre types includes in this game", or similar.

[Misplaced Buckeye]

Wow...this is one of those times I'm just going to sit back and watch the action. More able participants than myself are already engaged.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

1.04 "... the balance on the starting scenarios takes this into account." No distinction is made, that I can see, dividing the scenarios into "Starting", or any other category. Maybe reword it "The 'Mark III Attack' and the Mark III version of the 'GEV Escort' scenarios"?

Maybe simply: "... the balance of the scenarios takes this into account."

Page 4, Ogre Defending scenario: It is not immediately clear to me what "infantry equal to half the attacker's force" means. Veteran players will know that a 3-strength infantry piece is one Armor Unit, but that will not be evident to a new player reading this. I would restate the hard numbers from the Mark III and Mark V Attack scenarios and specify exactly how much infantry the defender gets in each case.

I think this is even more confusing as the wording in the rules does not make it obvious if the Ogre's value is meant to be included in the "Ogre and armor and infantry equal to half the attacker’s force." Is half meant to mean "half the armor and half the infantry" or is it meant to mean "half the total force, allowing for substitution of INF for armor?" I always assumed it meant half the armor and half the INF (eg, for the Mark III, it's 6 AU and 10 squads of INF). Making this clearer is probably a good idea.

2.02.1: The ridgeside artwork is not actually a "heavy black marking". "thick line of visible debris" might be more descriptive.

Yes. "heavy black marking" sounds like a holdover from describing the 1st Ed (or Pocket Ed).

Page 5 - GEV: Terrain doesn't actually affect GEVs any differently than any other unit on this map, and you have already called out their extreme mobility. I would omit the sentence, including the parenthetical insert about water.

I agree mentioning special characteristics for something that does not occur in the game is potentially confusing. I would take it all out and wait for the standalone G.E.V. set to explain it (unless you are planning on having terrain overlays, which seems not the case since there's no terrain table).

Page 6 - Ogre types playable in this game: I might use the word "included" instead of "playable", and possibly take the opportunity to call out the other types of Ogres included in ODE.

I'm not sure calling out other Ogres that you essentially can't buy is a good idea. This is a standalone game. I would expect other Ogre types to be addressed in other game material, not hinted at in this edition.

4.01: You may wish to avoid gendered langauge here. Not all Ogre players are male, though to be fair, the vast majority are.

What would be a non-gendered alternative, and what does it harm to use gendered wording? I certainly take no offense when rules are written with a female gender. I personally find attempts at PC wording for gender neutrality generally more absurd and unnecessary.

4.02 - Notes: A unit can be disabled by enemy fire, or by being rammed, but does this have any impact on when it recovers? I do not think so. [disregard if I'm misremembering th recovery rules here.] Players of this particular set need to keep track of when a unit is disabled, but not necessarily how. Either way, italicizing "necessary" may be overselling the point.

7.11: "If it becomes disabled on an enemy turn..." Is it even possible for a unit to be disabled on its own player's turn in this rule set?

This distinction only matters when terrain is involved, which does not occur in a "pure Ogre" game. This would matter only if overlays are planned to be included that might involve terrain-effect disables (which does not look to be the case). Your assessment is correct.

7.13: "either one specific weapon..." Technically, when you attack an Ogre, you designate a target weapon type as a target. "I target a SB gun", as opposed to "I target the second SB gun on the port side." I would insert the word "type" after "weapon".

That feels a bit overly-pedantic.

Page 11 - Example of Play: Would it be worth formatting this as a numbered section, rather than as a sidebar?

I'm thinking no, as it's a reflection of the ODE numbering that comes into play. What section number would you use?

[Tim Kauffman]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

NEW VERSION - This 12-page PDF includes all art corrections, See a typo or other error? Post it. Thanks.

...just in case "includes all art corrections" does not include the following because it was not noticed:
The Mark 5 is missing line art where the tower meets the upper chassis.

I'm sure I am the only one who cares, but having Faction Iconography on the OGREs (the Combine Hourglass for example,
would really be a nice touch).
These are on the 3D OGRE Chipboard units, and look pretty cool, and I might add, not as noticeable. ;)

Does anyone else think the OGRE Movement stat blocks may benefit and be more at-a-glance friendly if they are changed to this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...7659076220365/

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

4.01: You may wish to avoid gendered langauge here. Not all Ogre players are male, though to be fair, the vast majority are.

How about simply saying "they" or "their" instead of "he" or "she"?...in the case of 4.01 have it: "During their own turn..." for example.

Originally Posted by Misplaced Buckeye

Wow...this is one of those times I'm just going to sit back and watch the action. More able participants than myself are already engaged.

Except for some cosmetic things I've added... +1 :)

[sgbeal]

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

Does anyone else think the OGRE Movement stat blocks may benefit and be more at-a-glance friendly if they are changed to this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...7659076220365/

i really like those, but the rounded edges feel kinda out of place to me (too modern) in the overall scheme of Ogre design. So while i personally like them, i'd not like to see them in the core set - they feel a bit out of place. Maybe less curvy separators would be a better fit?

[dwalend]

I spotted two typos (through section 5)

2.01.1 no need for quotes around "clear" .

3.02 no need for quotes around “battlesuits” . Future Combat System articles used the term in the mainstream press.

The rest is bigger edits and just suggestions.

In p1's Section Numbering block - do you want to mention that some rules leave out information that does not apply tan-map Ogre?

If you've got room, consider adding MkIV Attack. It'd be an easy thing to add to the box. (And if you've got a lot of room, maybe even MkII Attack. It plays really fast.) (Will also change 3.04 Ogres section. And "Ogre types playable in this game:" And 3.4.2 will need missle rack rules. And 6.05. Ug. A MkIV will fill about a 1/4 page.)

Will there be terrain overlays in the box?

3.01 "Howitzer (HWZ). A non-self-propelled heavy missile cannon. " Maybe "A large immobile railgun" ? If you can avoid "missile" then you'll bypass confusion with ogre missiles. "Non-self-propelled" is pretty awkward, and almost implies it can be towed or something.

"GEVs may move twice per turn." Mabye "GEVs move both before and after their fire phase. See 5.05"

Consider dropping "Terrain affects GEVs differently from other units; in particular, they can cross water (though there is no water on the basic Ogre map)." if you need an extra 1/4" .

3.04 "Note that the two Mark III Ogres have different colors on
the sensor sphere at the top of the tower to make them easy to
distinguish." - How about printing names on the models so they can be distinguished very easily? Or one has a red tower (not just the sphere) and one has a gold or black tower ?

4.02 - For the disabled phase - is it worth adding a note that a disabled unit must spend an entire next enemy fire phase disabled? it's pretty well covered in 7.11.

4.03 "Multiplayer sequencing. A scenario with more than one
player on a side will use a similar sequence; players move in the
same order each turn. Each player on side A, in turn, moves and
resolves combat; then each player on side B, in turn, moves and
resolves combat. Players on the same side may take a single fire
phase together, after the last one moves, in order to combine fire." - I've only ever done it the later way - Players on the same side share a movement phase, then a fire phase. Does everyone else do it as 4.03 says?

"5.05 GEV double movement." Change to "Second (GEV) movement phase." to exactly match 4.02.

Maybe drop the box about " change the facing on each unit as you move it" if you need the space. Same recommendation for 7.03. It's the same picture, twice. A roll of pennies works better.

Time to rescue the babysitter... now the kids are in their cages again...

"6.02 ... An Ogre loses two tread units (see 3.04.2) for ramming a Heavy
Tank, and one tread unit for ramming any other armor unit." It might be better to list out the other units in this set - GEV, MSL and HWZ - to be a bit more compatible with the full set of units.

"7.13.3 Destroying Ogres. An Ogre is not destroyed until all
its firable weapons and tread units are gone. However, a lone,
immobile Ogre is helpless; at that point, the game is as good as over." Maybe rephrase as positive: "An Ogre is destroyed when all of its firable weapons and tread units are gone." Maybe drop the "however" sentence. The players will figure that out. An M0 Ogre might just be in SB range of the command post.

page 11 example of play. How the heck is the Ogre half way through M2, missing two SBs and 3 APs, but still has its main gun? Shouldn't a master sergeant offer the defense commander some stern advice before that?