============== OGRE/GEV list, August 29th (Last: August 23rd) =============== ===== Ogre Minis wording & errata From: sdorr@ix.netcom.com (Scott David Orr) ===== OGRE Spotting From: Garrett Briggs <71514.2661@CompuServe.COM> ===== Militia VP costs From: fish ===== More annoying questions From: fish ------------------------------ From: sdorr@ix.netcom.com (Scott David Orr) Subject: Ogre Minis wording & errata >From: fish >2) In Ogre Minis and in post 119 of the same document, it is implied that >infantry are able to dismount from their transport at any time in the >movement phase. This, technically, means that infantry riding, say, a >hovertruck, could dismount at the end of each movement phase and remount >at the beginning of the next. As per SJ's post 119, they would still >count as being stacked with the HT for combat purposes, but they could >fight normally in the combat phase and in any enemy overruns. >Is this interpretation correct? Yep. It's always been that way, even in the original GEV rules. Dismount your infantry at the end of every turn. :) I don't know why SJ bothered to write all those rules for how to treat mounted infantry.... >7) There are two instances of poor wording in the rulebook, which I think >should probably be changed in any later printings: > Under LOS (pg. 35), it states that LOS is evaluated from the >ground of the center of one figure to the ground of the center of the >other. However, the Hull-Down rules clearly state (on pg. 36) that a unit >can trace LOS from its gun turret, and that two tanks can be hull-down >with respect to one another. In such a situation, LOS as defined does not >exist. This is silly and contradictory. A better, less ambiguous phrasing >would be "Trace LOS from the gun barrel of the firing unit to the target >unit. If LOS can be traced to the hull of the target it counts as being >in full LOS, but if only part of the target can be seen, it is >'hull-down'." >In addition, LLOS units should be able to target hull-down enemies. After >all, modern-day armies somehow manage to kill hull-down tanks with direct >fire weapons. It would make sense to increase the defence bonus to +2 or >even doubling the defence of the unit, but disallowing the attack >altogether is silly. While the rule is indeed screwed up, your solution won't quite work, since it assumes that the unit is coextensive with the miniature: the problem with using the gun barrel is that that is _empty_space_. There is no unit there, because the miniature is a whole lot bigger than the unit is. > On page 29, it states that range is measured as a straight line >from unit center to center. However, it is clear that even if the shot >falls a little short, but still over the target miniature, the miniature >is counted as being in the Killing Zone, and still receives a >full-strength attack. Thus, the only time that the ranges would have to >reach the center of a target would be in a combined attacks, and IMHO >even then it wouldn't matter all that much. Thus: "As long as any portion >of the target miniature is within range of the center of the firing unit, >as measured on a straight line towards the aiming point [which would be >the center for most attacks, the gun barrel for a hull-down target], the >attack proceeds normally." Under Limints on Combining Attakcs: "All units >attacking the same point on a target must be within range of that point." >Thus combined attacks use the rules as written. But you're just taking bad rule and making it worse. :) Henry J. Cobb wrote: > 2: If they remain stacked with the transport they suffer exactly the >same effects, if they move far enough way to unstack then they can't >mount at the start of the next turn. No, I think they're only stacked if you say they're stacked -- if they dismount, they're in roughly the same place and they will be badly affected by spillover fire, but it's not as bad as being mounted: this flaw in the rules was carried over directly from GEV. Scott Orr ----- [Infantry must be "stacked" with a vehicle in order to ride it and the defense penalty for riding is to be treated as "stacked", so what's the frequency Kenneth? -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Garrett Briggs <71514.2661@CompuServe.COM> Subject: OGRE Spotting If anyone's interested, there is an OGRE Mark III mini available at Colpar Hobbies West, in Lakewood, CO. phone is 303-988-5157. Price is about $13.50 I beleive. gcb ------------------------------ From: fish Subject: Militia VP costs Well, this is irksome. I guess we'll have to stop our unstoppable APC/militia platoon hordes (2 VP for the power of a HVY!) now. Okay, if it's 1 VP, then it certainly looks like nothing so much as 1/3. Thus, it should be errata -- errata is really only for the uninitiated, anyway, and only the uninitiated (read:people like me) won't already know it's 1 VP/squad. Re: GEV-PC VP costs Six, huh? Blah. I sorta liked them a lot at three, but now they don't seem so attractive. Well, why was the change made? Any ideas? And you might also want to errata the TOEs to say that an MI platoon costs 12, not 9, VPs. And so on. Re: Dismounted infantry from hovertrucks You misread my question. I'm aware of the fact that infantry which have just dismounted before the combat phase are still counted as being stacked for combat purposes, but the important distinction is that since they are not _inside_ the HT for the combat phase, they may fight as normal, and they aren't sitting ducks for enemy overruns during their movement phase -- since they're outside of the HT, they can fight as normal. Thus, the 'no combat from HTs and Ts' rule is only really a hindrance in friendly overruns. Although it still makes APCs pretty limited in the overrun capability. New business 1: Additional overrun rules It occurs to me (and some others) that infantry in an enclosed vehicle should be able to dismount for an overrun attack. I will grant that it certainly would take longer than the (effectively) 0 time which it takes units 'on top', but it seems like taking a full fire phase to dismount would be quite reasponable. After all, how long is an overrun fire phase supposed to represent, anyway? And how long does it take a _trained_ infantry unit (militia might take longer, being non-battlesuited and poorly trained. Perhaps elite militia (1 1/6 VP), though - ) to dismountfrom their APCs? Certainly we can do it today in relatively little time. I should think it would take mere seconds for an infantry squad to burst through the walls of a D0 truck and join the fray. New business 2: Marine overruns on GEV-PCs The obscure tactical situation of the day: An Ogre is slowly chugging its merry way along the silt under a waterway. It is overrun by a GEV-PC carrying marines. Now, usually, the GEV-PC wouldn't be allowed to fire at the Ogre in the overrun situation, but even though the two units are on totally different levels of the water, the rules still term it as an 'overrun', and thus the marines should be able to do combat as normal. This true? Oh, and can infantry only gain two fire rounds after all the Ogre missiles are depleted? If so, that's a good way to force an Ogre to fire all of its missiles, on lowly infantry no less: just overrun it in naval combat with a bunch of marines. If it doesn't fire its missiles it still has effective weaponry and so the marines can spend lots of time pecking out its main batteries (grin), so it has to expend its missiles as fast as it can so as to end the combat as soon as possible. That's all for now. -- fish ><> ----- [I'm still not sure IF an OGRE can use missiles in underwater overruns. -HJC] ------------------------------ From: fish Subject: More annoying questions Ramming: It occurs to me that GEV-PCs and maybe Hovertrucks should do as much ram damage against buildings as GEVs do. While they can't move as fast, they're much more massive, and as an example of a parallel they do similar ram damage when used against units -- that is, like the GEV, they have an attack value of four. Thus, shouldn't rams versus structures also do 2 dice damage? Also note that LGEV rams are _very_ effective against Ogre treads. You make a 1:1 tradeoff in terms of VPs, which is much better than you could normally expect. If you allow the Cobb Unit's LGEV-PC conversion, the units doomed to be monkey wrenches could even carry infantry into the overrun with them. Point Defence Installations: Could you install one of these on the CP in the Crush the CP scenario? Just curious. Odds Table: Perhaps the CRT should be modified to note that under 5-1 odds a '1' on the die is an X, all other rolls are XX; at 6-1 and above all rolls are XX. At least that's the way I've been playing it; as written at 5-1 odds you can only get a hulk, and not a vaporize... Falling 1: Are we sure that the Falling Ogre table is correct? For one thing, a size 7/8 Ogre falling 3 levels takes more damage than a Size 6 Ogre -- something which goes against the trend of the table. Should that 15d be a 13d? Falling 2: It's my opinion that the damage progression for tread damage should be reversed. Physically, a larger Ogre will hit the ground with greater force, thus creating more damage (not less!) to the tread system. Larger Ogres will still be better able to withstand the damage simply because they have more tread units, but they should be taking more damage to begin with. Falling 3: As written, a Mk. I Ogre is almost certain to be totally immobilized by a fall from any height. On the other hand, a SHVY which goes of a cliff is quite likely to be able to pick itself up after being disabled and roll on its merry way, wat its full movement rate. We've already introduced the concept of 'notional tread units' for the HVY and SHVY tanks, in ramming, so why not use them here? After all, a SHVY has more tread capacity than a Mk. I Ogre, so why not give it the same tread damage as the Ogre has when it plummets? It certainly makes sense. Falling 4: By almost the same argument, I think HVYs should be able to go off of Level 1 cliffs and survive (maybe). They';ve got the 'notional tread units' too, almost as many as the Mk. I, so what makes the SHVY so special that it's the only manned unit which can fall? Its defence isn't all that much higher than the HVY tank. My personal feeling is that a HVY should be able to go over a 1 level cliff at 3-1 odds and 7d of 'tread' damage -- meaning it'll still probably die, and if it doesn't, it'll probably sit there until whatever it was running from comes up and eats it, but it'll have a chance. -- fish ><> ------------------------------ Henry J. Cobb hcobb@io.com http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 1996, by Steve Jackson Games.