Rulebook PDF Posted

[dwalend]

0. The attacker decides to attack some infantry in a hex. Say with 3 marines and 3 inf.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

That isn't going to work, for two reasons.

1. The defense predetermines how the squads are combined during an attack (See 7.12.1)

The squads in a hex combine into groups. So our 3 marines and 3 inf form up into (2 marines + 1 inf) and (1 marine + 2 inf).

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

2. A attack is always explicitly called out ahead of time (See 7.08)

The attacker is no fool and picks (2 marines + 1 inf). He gets the D result.

So it will always be clear exactly what infantry is being affected during a given attack.

Does the defender give up the inf or one of the marines? 3.02 currently says to roll to resolve it.

Sorry if I missed your point completely. (Awesome job proofing the whole text, btw.)

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dwalend

0. The attacker decides to attack some infantry in a hex. Say with 3 marines and 3 inf.

The squads in a hex combine into groups. So our 3 marines and 3 inf form up into (2 marines + 1 inf) and (1 marine + 2 inf).

The attacker is no fool and picks (2 marines + 1 inf). He gets the D result.

Does the defender give up the inf or one of the marines? 3.02 currently says to roll to resolve it.

Sorry if I missed your point completely.

Ah, I get it now. I missed your point. I didn't catch that "mixed stack" meant "mixed group of squads." When I see "stack" I think "stack of counters (ie, as in stacking rules for armor units)." This particular case is dealing with different types of infantry and how to resolve what happens.

Maybe "mixed stack" should be "mixed group?" I'm not sure what would make it clearer. :-(

Originally Posted by dwalend

(Awesome job proofing the whole text, btw.)

Thanks. I've been told I'm passionate (crazy?) about Ogre. :-)

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dwalend

Actually the rules text bounces back and forth between a unit being a counter and a unit being a squad. (I also spotted tread unit.) Counter, unit, and stack are ambiguous in the rules, and the text uses the term group as well. (Ug. A big, late change.)

Sorry

Originally Posted by dwalend

7.09 Successive attacks.... Exception: Per 7.05.1, an infantry squad may only suffer one AP attack per turn from each attacking unit.

I don't like this one. It changes the AP attack dynamics such that the defender is not the one deciding the infantry grouping. It implies that the attacker can target each squad individually, allowing for multiple attacks in the same turn (eg, a Mark V attacks a D3 INF group with 3AP against each individual squad, rather than a single attack against the D3 group).

Originally Posted by dwalend

7.10 Attack resolution. ...

When an infantry group receives a D
result, it is immediately reduced by one squad.

This seems like it belongs somewhere else. Everything in 7.10 is discussing the ratio, not the results of the CRT lookup. Maybe you meant under 7.11?

Originally Posted by dwalend

12.08 Spillover fire. Replace "infantry unit" with "infantry squad"

Maybe "infantry group" instead, or reference 7.12.1?

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by dwalend

7.09 Successive attacks.... Exception: Per 7.05.1, an infantry squad may only suffer one AP attack per turn from each attacking unit.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

I don't like this one. It changes the AP attack dynamics such that the defender is not the one deciding the infantry grouping. It implies that the attacker can target each squad individually, allowing for multiple attacks in the same turn (eg, a Mark V attacks a D3 INF group with 3AP against each individual squad, rather than a single attack against the D3 group).

I hope there's something I don't understand about the rule. A few months back, I recommended dropping this limit on AP attacks. It adds a lot of complexity without changing the green-map game much.

I imagined a different problem: I think the rule could be munchkinned as follows: An attacker attacks a hex with 9 Inf with AP guns. The defender offers a lot of 3-inf groups. The attacker targets one of the 3-inf groups and misses. The attacker attacks the same hex with more AP guns from the same unit. The defender reshuffles the 3 groups so that every group has a squad that was originally attacked. None of the inf can be attacked. Twirl waxed mustache and grin.

What's the spirit of this rule that should be preserved? Is it to prevent an Ogre from grinding down the last infantry with AP guns on the brown map? Or something else?

I see some options. Any others?

1) Only allow one AP attack per attacking unit on a hex per turn.
2) Only allow one AP attack per hex per turn.
3) Don't allow the defender to regroup infantry squads for each attack.
4) Drop this limit, at least in games where stacking is allowed.
5) Something else.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

This seems like it belongs somewhere else. Everything in 7.10 is discussing the ratio, not the results of the CRT lookup. Maybe you meant under 7.11?

Good catch. I fixed the post.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Maybe "infantry group" instead, or reference 7.12.1?

I think either would be fine in this rule. What difference do you see?

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Thanks. I've been told I'm passionate (crazy?) about Ogre. :-)

Ask me about my masters project...

[KevinR]

Originally Posted by dwalend

I hope there's something I don't understand about the rule. A few months back, I recommended dropping this limit on AP attacks. It adds a lot of complexity without changing the green-map game much.
...
What's the spirit of this rule that should be preserved? Is it to prevent an Ogre from grinding down the last infantry with AP guns on the brown map? Or something else?

I think that it's meant to prevent the Ogre from firing 1 AP at a time until it gets a hit and then moving on to a new target. The Ogre player needs to decide how many AP he is going to aim at the target (and cannot add more if the first ones miss).

Philosophically, I think that the concept is that all the AP is fired simultaneously (and continuously like a machine gun?) while the bigger guns can be fired one at a time (and the outcome considered between shots).

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dwalend

I imagined a different problem: I think the rule could be munchkinned as follows: An attacker attacks a hex with 9 Inf with AP guns. The defender offers a lot of 3-inf groups. The attacker targets one of the 3-inf groups and misses. The attacker attacks the same hex with more AP guns from the same unit. The defender reshuffles the 3 groups so that every group has a squad that was originally attacked. None of the inf can be attacked. Twirl waxed mustache and grin.

Very creative :-)

What's the spirit of this rule that should be preserved? Is it to prevent an Ogre from grinding down the last infantry with AP guns on the brown map? Or something else?

I'm not sure what the original reasoning is. It seems like if you were dealing with the "last infantry," you would just load up a single 5-1 attack and be done with it. It matters only if you need to save the APs for something later on. I think KevinR is onto something, though.

I see some options. Any others?

1) Only allow one AP attack per attacking unit on a hex per turn.

This limits the ability to attack multiple targets. Since there could be up to 15 squads in a hex, that's a bummer.

2) Only allow one AP attack per hex per turn.

Similar problem to #1, and additionally hamstrings using more than one unit to attack (eg, Ogre #2 can't attack because Ogre #1 already did. What the..?)

3) Don't allow the defender to regroup infantry squads for each attack.

Winner: This seems the most likely, and could be addressed in 7.12.1 by saying the defense gets to pick the groupings in a hex only once per fire phase (ie, pick your groupings during the first attack and it sticks for additional attacks during that phase). Actually, I like this one a lot because it explicitly governs (and avoids) the moustache-twirling in all cases.

4) Drop this limit, at least in games where stacking is allowed.

Also doable, but I'm leery of conditional rules. Why are AP weapons so special? Why not allow the APs to be used more like "normal" weapons?

5) Something else.

TBD

Originally Posted by dwalend

I think either would be fine in this rule. What difference do you see?

What concerns me is specifically referencing infantry squads in the context of infantry riding on units when talking about spillover from lasers. Is the suggestion that infantry still take spillover attacks, and if so, should they take an attack on each squad? Referencing 7.12.1 reinforces that the defense can at least say "roll for the spillover against a D2 instead of two D1s."

Additionally, I notice that 12.08 references riding on a truck; infantry rides inside a truck.

Originally Posted by dwalend

Ask me about my masters project...

Ask me what I did in my LOGO programming class when I was 15 ;-)

[dwalend]

7.09 Successive attacks....

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Very creative :-)
I'm not sure what the original reasoning is. It seems like if you were dealing with the "last infantry," you would just load up a single 5-1 attack and be done with it. It matters only if you need to save the APs for something later on. I think KevinR is onto something, though.

Originally Posted by dwalend

3) Don't allow the defender to regroup infantry squads for each attack.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Winner: This seems the most likely, and could be addressed in 7.12.1 by saying the defense gets to pick the groupings in a hex only once per fire phase (ie, pick your groupings during the first attack and it sticks for additional attacks during that phase). Actually, I like this one a lot because it explicitly governs (and avoids) the moustache-twirling in all cases.

I'm not in favor of this one. This one makes infantry much more vulnerable to an initial 2:1 (or 4:1) attack -- especially the spill-over effects -- followed by 1:1 mopping-up shots from missile tanks, GEVs, LGEVs and inf. It takes away one of inf's best defenses.

Originally Posted by dwalend

4) Drop this limit, at least in games where stacking is allowed.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Also doable, but I'm leery of conditional rules. Why are AP weapons so special? Why not allow the APs to be used more like "normal" weapons?

I'd be fine dropping the successive attack restriction in 7.09 entirely (as I suggested way back). The rule only helps the inf rarely and a little. In Ogre, there are always more inf to shoot, or lots of AP guns to set up a massive attack. In GEV, there always seems to be more non-AP guns to point at the inf, and more inf somewhere else for the unused AP guns.

---

12.08 Spillover fire

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

What concerns me is specifically referencing infantry squads in the context of infantry riding on units when talking about spillover from lasers. Is the suggestion that infantry still take spillover attacks, and if so, should they take an attack on each squad? Referencing 7.12.1 reinforces that the defense can at least say "roll for the spillover against a D2 instead of two D1s."

Additionally, I notice that 12.08 references riding on a truck; infantry rides inside a truck.

Good explanation of the problem. I'd interpret it not so much as "spill-over fire" as "being in between the laser and its target," so squad seems right. Does that make lasers too powerful?

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dwalend

7.09 Successive attacks....I'm not in favor of this one. This one makes infantry much more vulnerable to an initial 2:1 (or 4:1) attack -- especially the spill-over effects -- followed by 1:1 mopping-up shots from missile tanks, GEVs, LGEVs and inf. It takes away one of inf's best defenses.

It doesn't impact the initial attack at all, it's more about the cleanup afterward. You make your initial attack and the defense arranges as they want. The results are resolved (first the primary attack, then the spillovers) based on that defensive grouping. I'm assuming infantry can not regroup in-between the initial and the spillovers, since that is essentially the same round that was fired.

Now, if you think the infantry, at its core, gets some of its defensive coolness by being able to regroup for every attack, that's fine. It's just a question of scale to decide if that's appropriate: ie, does the infantry move fast enough to be able to react in-between attacks?

Originally Posted by dwalend

I'd be fine dropping 7.09 entirely (as I suggested way back). The rule only helps the inf rarely and a little. In Ogre, there are always more inf to shoot, or lots of AP guns to set up a massive attack. In GEV, there always seems to be more non-AP guns to point at the inf, and more inf somewhere else for the unused AP guns.

Not the entire rule, just the infantry AP exception. What I'm envisioning is: how are the APs different from the SBs or MBs? Unless I really missed something, an Ogre can make subsequent attacks on the same unit with similar weapons (just not the same weapon). Why not be able to attack the same way with the APs, too? I don't see where having that limitation really helps/hurts either way.

Note: Changing that means modifying 7.05.1 to match, too.

Originally Posted by dwalend

12.08 Spillover fire

Good explanation of the problem. I'd interpret it not so much as "spill-over fire" as "being in between the laser and its target," so squad seems right. Does that make lasers too powerful?

Right. How pinpoint are lasers, and how do you know which squad gets targeted (going back to the mixed INF types that could be there)?

Another argument for it being an individual squad is the relative non-mobility to be able to form groups. The infantry are in a basically fixed position riding on an armor unit, so they may not be able to regroup in response to an attack the same way they can in normal terrain.

I don't think that if you have two squads of infantry, that they should both be targeted by spillover from a laser. Either the laser is pinpoint enough, or it isn't. If it is, then only a single squad should be affected, but you have to figure out which one. If it isn't, then the infantry should be able to group together as normal to improve their chances.

As you say, it's not spillover as much as getting in the way, so you aren't doing multiple spillover attacks (one for each squad), right? That would be too powerful. But, you are destroying an entire armor unit, so maybe everything riding should be affected...

ugh.

[dwalend]

7.05.1 and 7.09

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

It doesn't impact the initial attack at all, it's more about the cleanup afterward. You make your initial attack and the defense arranges as they want. The results are resolved (first the primary attack, then the spillovers) based on that defensive grouping. I'm assuming infantry can not regroup in-between the initial and the spillovers, since that is essentially the same round that was fired.

Exactly. Spill-over is part of the same attack.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Now, if you think the infantry, at its core, gets some of its defensive coolness by being able to regroup for every attack, that's fine. It's just a question of scale to decide if that's appropriate: ie, does the infantry move fast enough to be able to react in-between attacks?

Stacked infantry without this ability is very vulnerable to follow-on attacks, especially on open ground.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Not the entire rule, just the infantry AP exception.

Updated my post to clarify.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

What I'm envisioning is: how are the APs different from the SBs or MBs? Unless I really missed something, an Ogre can make subsequent attacks on the same unit with similar weapons (just not the same weapon). Why not be able to attack the same way with the APs, too? I don't see where having that limitation really helps/hurts either way.

It doesn't matter too much. In most cases the Ogre has an excess of guns or an excess of targets (or both). For superheavies and MkIs it might be different. Superheavies have an excess of guns. MkIs could use the boost.

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Note: Changing that means modifying 7.05.1 to match, too.

I think we've pretty much plumbed the depths on this one.

I propose

7.05.1 AP weapons. Antipersonnel weapons are
effective only against infantry (including special infantry types)
and D0 units such as a regular (unarmored) CP. Any
number of AP weapons may be used for an attack.
Note: Any weapon may be used against infantry. AP weapons are
useless against anything but infantry, targets with a defense of 0,
and other targets as designated in scenarios.

and

7.09 Successive attacks. Any number of successive attacks may
be made against any unit or Ogre weapon in one turn, provided
that each attacking unit or weapon fires only once.

---

12.08 Spillover fire

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Right. How pinpoint are lasers, and how do you know which squad gets targeted (going back to the mixed INF types that could be there)?

It is a science fiction game, so Steve can make up the science to match the better rule. Lasers can combine fire with tac nukes. I have to mutter about Bayesian tracking hypotheses to make that sound plausible.

I wonder if the real problem is my not pondering 5.11.2. Combat involving infantry riding vehicles. Maybe it needs to specify if the infantry riding can be a group or not, and gain benefits from the group.

The relevant sentence could be:

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 each riding infantry squad and applies the results separately to the vehicle and each squad.

or (as I've always played)

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 the riding infantry squads as a group and applies the results separately to the vehicle and infantry group.

That sentence will make trouble for infantry riding on a MkIII or bigger Ogre.

No matter which is best, the 12.08 rule could just not use the word infantry by itself.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dwalend

7.05.1 and 7.09

Stacked infantry without this ability [regrouping for every attack] is very vulnerable to follow-on attacks, especially on open ground.

Fair enough. I think that's reasonable.

It doesn't matter too much. In most cases the Ogre has an excess of guns or an excess of targets (or both). For superheavies and MkIs it might be different. Superheavies have an excess of guns. MkIs could use the boost.

I think we've pretty much plumbed the depths on this one.

Yes, I think we are on the same page; infantry can regroup for every attack.

I propose

7.05.1 AP weapons. Antipersonnel weapons are effective only against infantry (including special infantry types) and D0 units such as a regular (unarmored) CP. Any number of AP weapons may be used for an attack.
Note: Any weapon may be used against infantry. AP weapons are useless against anything but infantry, targets with a defense of 0, and other targets as designated in scenarios.

I wouldn't drag out the note so much. It's mostly redundant. How about:

7.05.1 AP weapons. Antipersonnel weapons are effective only against infantry (including special infantry types) and D0 units such as a regular (unarmored) CP.
Note: Any weapon may be used against infantry.

I also omitted "Any number of AP weapons may be used for an attack." because with the removal of the initial exception, it is implied that they behave the same way as any other weapon. The only remaining special characteristic is that they are restricted in the type of target (ie, INF and D0 targets).

7.09 Successive attacks. Any number of successive attacks may be made against any unit or Ogre weapon in one turn, provided that each attacking unit or weapon fires only once.

That sounds fine. Short and to the point.

---

12.08 Spillover fire

It is a science fiction game, so Steve can make up the science to match the better rule. Lasers can combine fire with tac nukes. I have to mutter about Bayesian tracking hypotheses to make that sound plausible.

Well, it is a game, and sometimes physics suffers for the benefit of gameplay. I seem to recall reading that somewhere years ago, maybe in the Ogre book. :-)

I wonder if the real problem is my not pondering 5.11.2. Combat involving infantry riding vehicles. Maybe it needs to specify if the infantry riding can be a group or not, and gain benefits from the group.

Probably. 5.11.2 is sufficiently vague, because it just says "infantry," not squad or group. "Infantry" alone implies to me that it behaves normally (ie, gets to group defensively as normal). The example doesn't clarify, either, since a HVY can carry only one squad.

The relevant sentence could be:

1. 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 each riding infantry squad and applies the results separately to the vehicle and each squad.

or (as I've always played)

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 the riding infantry squads as a group and applies the results separately to the vehicle and infantry group.

That sentence will make trouble for infantry riding on a MkIII or bigger Ogre.

Ok, so let's go there. 5.11.1 says to calculate as Size - 3 = max number of infantry (eg, MkIII can carry 4 squads, not that it would ever happen). The problem you are implying is that you can group only 3 squads max, so you will still end up with at least two infantry groups of some kind, in which case, you now have to figure out how it gets applied.

Functionally, I don't think it's any different with two squads or four. You are still applying the roll against every group on the armor unit/Ogre. It just means you will have to calculate results for two groups instead of one. So... the root question is: can riding infantry group or not (getting back to 5.11.2)?

If no, then it's version 1 (calculate odds against each squad individually)
If yes, then it's version 2 (allow defensive grouping)

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward version 1 and calculating against each squad. The reason is this: the defensive grouping bonus comes from infantry being able to move around within a 1.5km space. Normally, I envision the infantry scrambling once the attack is declared (getting into foxholes, etc). I think infantry loses that ability when everyone is crammed onto an armor unit or sitting in a truck. It's a more focused attack, and everything on that unit is a sitting duck. Essentially, they are giving up defensive mobility for an increase in speed.

No matter which is best, the 12.08 rule could just not use the word infantry by itself.

Well, 12.08 is called "Spillover fire" in the sense that it's calling out the fact that lasers don't have any spillover fire. It is important, however, to call out how infantry is affected. What about changing 12.08 to:

12.08 Spillover fire. A laser attack does not give spillover fire on units stacked with the target. However, it does affect infantry riding on a unit as in 5.11.2

And one last thing; how does terrain affect infantry that is riding on a unit? As I alluded to before, infantry lose some of their magic once they hop a ride. For example, I don't see them getting a triple bonus in town, because they aren't hiding in the buildings anymore. I think there needs to be a clarification on what terrain bonus they get while riding. I suggest they get whatever the bonus is for the unit they are riding, since that's the real target.