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

[GranitePenguin]

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.

[selenite]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

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.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

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...

[sir_pudding]

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?

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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?

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.

[GranitePenguin]

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.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

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?

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.

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.

(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.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by dwalend

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.

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.

[GranitePenguin]

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.

[tomc]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

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

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.

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.