06-22-2014, 09:02 AM | #2 |
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin TX
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
FAQ for 8.05.1, the answer to the second question has the British spelling of defenceless instead of the American spelling of defenseless.
__________________
My sci-fi/fantasy wargaming blog: Super Galactic Dreadnought |
06-22-2014, 09:35 AM | #4 | ||
Former Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Please note this new entry which wasn't in the previous draft FAQ:
Quote:
Quote:
The FAQ originally disallowed dismounting for the same reasons - it requires to track whether or not the infantry had mounted before the fire phase. However, that's easier to track ("did the infantry start this turn on the GEV-PC?") than the above. And one of the purposes of GEV-PCs is to deliver infantry fast. I'm very willing to be persuaded the current draft FAQ on this should be changed . . . |
||
06-23-2014, 09:04 AM | #5 | |||
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Quote:
Quote:
I admit that this does beg the question of "why can they dismount during the second movement phase, but not mount?" My answer is this - dismounting isn't movement per se, they're just essentially getting dumped. Mounting requires a coordinated rendez-vous (including INF movement), dismounting is as simple as letting go... Quote:
Hmm... I just through of this question: Can INF riding GEV-PCs (or SHVYs) reconstitute "on the fly" without doing a dismount/remount? e.g., if I have 2 INF on 1 GEV-PC and 1 INF on another, can they become a 3 INF group on a single GEV-PC without going through a turn on the ground? My gut says yes, but that they should only be able to do that once per turn. Thoughts?
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|||
06-23-2014, 10:59 AM | #6 | |||
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-23-2014, 11:44 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Quote:
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|
06-23-2014, 12:14 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Quote:
Maybe something softer -- "Infantry mounted on the same vehicle must be in the same defense group. Other infantry in the hex may join that group" if they feel lucky. |
|
06-23-2014, 04:02 PM | #9 | |||
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
Quote:
I've always read it as targeting the vehicle delivers the same die roll to the infantry mounted on the vehicle -- regardless of how they are grouped. So a strength 2 attack on the LT at 1:1 delivers a 2:1 to the riding infantry (with the same die roll) and delivers spillover to the rest of the infantry group. For example, the 6 result would X the LT and that one Inf but the rest of the group would get spill over (at D2, although that's my reading again). When a superheavy or GEV-PC gets zapped, the INF can form a D2 or D3 group for that attack. (The old rules said you could regroup whenever. This adds a wrinkle for the newest rule.) Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
06-24-2014, 08:12 AM | #10 |
Former Ogre Line Editor
Join Date: Dec 2011
|
Re: Official Rules Update and FAQ (Draft versions 1.01 - June 21)
The most illuminating conversation I've had about this with Steve is that, thematically, grouping literally represents "these guys are together over here, and those guys are together over there" in the 1.5-km wide area.
So the FAQ pretty much just clarifies what I think has been Steve's intent all along: - All the guys on a certain vehicle are one group (they don't have a choice - this is made clear by the fact that they all share the same die roll as the vehicle). - All the guys on vehicle A are not a group with all the guys on vehicle B (because the infantry have no control over where vehicles A and B are in the hex. They could literally be at opposite ends). - All the guys on a vehicle are not grouped with other guys not on any vehicle, for the same reason as above (i.e. they are highly unlikely to be at the same spot during incoming fire) Put another way: guys forming a group represents infantry tactically working together, hence the ECM overlap. Being mounted instantly nullifies that tactical option (except that everyone mounted together gets the ECM overlap anyway, just from proximity). I know there's the potential objection "groundpounders and tanks have always worked together! So the infantry not on a vehicle could be next to the infantry on them!". I think that this is where we say, that, at this scale, the commander has lost the overall option to do that (i.e. to get that granularity, the rules would have to track how fast the vehicle is moving each turn. By forgoing that level of bookkeeping, we also forgo the tanks-at-infantry-pace defensive grouping option). ------------ The clarification, to my mind, makes a lot of sense: - Thematically, it works (see above) - Gameplay-wise, it is simple and clear to resolve (it avoids the kinds of rules tangles involving 5.11.3 which Kevin has brought up) TLDR: I'm pretty sure that Steve never intended infantry not on the same vehicle to be able to group defensively |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|