====== OGRE Digest, Feburary 28th, 2003 (Last: February 27th) ======== ===== Strategic Game From: "Herb Diehr" ===== infantry capturing armor From: "Chris French" From: reaper28i From: Kirk Hunt ===== Ogre Defense From: Sethkimmel@aol.com From: "Chris French" ===== Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-based rules From: David Morse From: "Paul Chapman" From: David Morse From: "Paul Chapman" ===== Marine Defense From: stephan beal ===== Boat Ramps From: Sethkimmel@aol.com ============================== From: "Herb Diehr" Subject: Strategic Game > As for a strategic game: First, we'd need maps that simulate ac- > tual battlefields. I recall asking once if anyone knew of a source > for maps of Europe which could be used to generate "real" > battlefields, but never got an answer. These are readily available from the USGS in Washington. http://www.usgs.gov/ Some maps were free, the last time I checked. Most were cheap. Some are from WW II, which may be interesting, as well. Adding a hex grid should not prove too difficult. A strategic game should have more than just providing opportunities for game-generation; it should also provide economic concerns, strategic movement, etc. I was hoping one of the bulging brains out there would have an interest in tackling this subject... 1.000 units? When you look at all the things people have come up with, it's quite large. 960 was the last I heard, right here a couple of years ago. Figured it grew... Herb Diehr ============================== From: "Chris French" Subject: infantry capturing armor > From: David Morse > I was playtesting a scenario where, in the end, two missile tanks and > one heavy tank were barricaded up in a 2 hex city, hopelessly surrounded > by PanEuropean infantry. They were disabled and since it was the > endgame the infantry really didn't have anywhere else they had to be. > It occurrs to me that in this situation, the infantry might attempt to > capture the vehicles, rather than destroy them. I would think that at this point the armor jockeys would simply surrender, knowing that if they didn't, the INF would be recei- ving help shortly (not to mention how effective INF is in city hexes...). Also, hasn't it been established in _OM_ that an X result (as opposed to XX) results in a salvageable hulk instead of a centri- fugally-arranged rosette of BPC shavings? ===== From: reaper28i Subject: infantry capturing armor > From: David Morse > Thereafter the vehicle drops to D1 (its point > defense is off), but is undisabled. It does not move or fire on > anybody's turn - safety interlocks have to be overrided back at HQ. An > opposing side may try to re-capture it, by following this procedure > again. The captured vehicle will usually award double victory points, > see your local scenario for details. Great idea, especially in the endgame turns, but one query springs to mind. The vehicle cannot move or fire after being captured, so what happens if, by some fluke :) it is captured early in the game? As you state, the opposing side may try and re-capture it. Therefore imho all the infantry gain is a defensive bonus from the vehicle's armour (they can't shoot from inside the vehicle with the hatches closed) until such time as they are dragged kicking and screaming from the vehicle. > Ogres are greatly favored in overruns in GEV and should > not brake to avoid hostiles. -HJC] :) I wonder if SJGames might include OGRE bumper stickers if and when decals become available "I DON'T BRAKE FOR ANTHING OR ANYBODY!" Well it should be large enough to read on a macroture anway :) Regards, Mark. ===== From: Kirk Hunt Subject: infantry capturing armor > So some brainstormed mechanics: > > A disabled non-ogre armor unit may be the subject of > an infantry capture > attempt. First have forces overrun, suffering > through the defense's > first fire phase. When the surviving overrunners > have their chance to > shoot, they declare which infantry are attempting to > capture. These > infantry do not have their attack strength doubled > this round. They > (and only they) attack the target armor Good to here > and can have > no better than 1-1 > odds. Bad. Considering that disabling, but not killing the unit is hard plus that the attempted capture may kill the vehicle, why throw in this complication? > The vehicle can be the subject of no further > attacks this overrun > round (i.e. the heavy tank in the background can't > wait to see if the > capture fails, then blow the nuts off the vehicle in > a feeling of sour > grapes). If the attack rolls a "D", the vehicle is > destroyed, Good to here. > as is 1 > squad of infantry. Bad. Roll 1-1 for each INF, up to vehicle attack strength. If vehicle is captured, at least one INF automatically survives. > If the attack rolls an "X", the > vehicle is captured. > Infantry breach its hull, "subdue" the former > occupants, and power off > the battle computer. Thereafter the vehicle drops > to D1 (its point > defense is off), but is undisabled. Good to here, except should be "reduce defense by two or minimum of D1." > It does not > move or fire on > anybody's turn - safety interlocks have to be > overrided back at HQ. Bad. Reduce speed by one (or two) with a minimum of Speed 1. Can't fire (interlocks) but can drive unit off board to score it. > An > opposing side may try to re-capture it, by following > this procedure > again. The captured vehicle will usually award > double victory points, > see your local scenario for details. Desercat ============================== From: Sethkimmel@aol.com Subject: Ogre Defense > [SJ has changed his mind about the defense value of a Mark II's > >secondaries over time, which I think is the starting point for this, but > >really I don't see the point in having a less armored Ogre after the Mark > >I. -HJC] > > I'm thinking the Mk I's and II's came out pretty closely; if I'm wrong, > then > skip the D3 Mk II. > I'm lobbying for both: D2 SB's are in the MkII, and D3 SB's are in the MkIIB.... ============================== From: "Chris French" Subject: Ogre Defense > From: stephan beal > Additionally, the MB DEF was misprinted on the late-80's Deluxe Edition > (printed as D3, with the SB printed at D2). i didn't know for a long time > that it was a misprint, and always wondered why people people had such a > problem with Ogres. My copy comes with a business-card-sized errata sheet that points out and rectifies this error; yours doesn't? > [If the GEV map is ever revised, it might be fun to put a few beach > and ramp markers on the map. -HJC] Speaking of _GEV_ maps, is it possible to get one with 1" hexes (like I saw briefly at DunDraCon this year) separately, or do they only come with kits? [http://www.warehouse23.com/item.cgi?SJG10-2010 -HJC] > [SJ or Paul would be the authorities here. AFAIK, all of the > Superheavies everywhere were revised into being D5 from the very start. > -HJC] Thank you. > [Can I share an interesting quote from the rulebook? > GEV 6.137: "Hostile Ogres may fight each other underwater - missiles only." > Combine with the "new" rapid fire missile racks, stir in some marines and > you've got atomic gumbo. -HJC] That's nice -- now where the *&^%$#@! are these "rapid-fire missile racks" published? Also, if the OGREs can shoot missiles at each other while in the water, why can't they shoot anything else? [Targeting? Need drone rules.... -HJC ;-] (SJ should *never* have published _The Munchkin's Guide To Power Gaming_.... >:) ) > [Not in GEV, where the Ogre does not take damage from ramming armor > units in Overruns. Ogres are greatly favored in overruns in GEV and > should not brake to avoid hostiles. -HJC] Ah. OK. > From: "Chris French" > Subject: _OGRE Book_ errata Umm, Mr. Cobb, I sorta figured you weren't going to publish that.... :) One final question: What Cobb Formula Defense Modifier would you suggest for a unit that has two types of movement mode (one which ignores terrain, but also ignores Defense modifiers; another which prohibits moving through forest hexes, but allows the unit to cut short its movement in exchange for us- ing forest/swamp D bonuses), and treats D CRT results as X? CF ===== [Sorry about the mixup. Taking D as X is a 3/4ths multiplier for the defense modifier. For multi-modal units, charge the most expensive mode plus one tenth of all other modes. So if the formula says that Mode-A is a total unit cost of 10 VPs and Mode-B is a total unit cost of 5 VPs then the total cost is 10.5 VPs. -HJC] ============================== From: David Morse Subject: Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-based rules questions rant ahead. PC directly CCed, so if he wants to reply in time for the next installment he can. > From: "Paul Chapman" > > >>From: Andrew Walters >> #3 It depends on what the defense of marines in water is. Were you >>using Shockwave (no bonus) or Ogre Minis (almost unkillable)? Paul, can >>you'll errata some clarity here? (Water as woods is fine to me.) > > > I'm going to disagree with Henry here; both Shockwave and OM give Marines > the same protection. > > Shockwave does not specifically grant a defensive bonus, because one is > inherent in the positioning of "underwater" -- i.e. "Only attacked by HWZ, > MHWZ, or Ogre missiles, and only at 1/2 strength." This is stated with a > bit more clarity in OM. > > The Marines greatest strength is the ability to attack while in/under water > ("...fight equally well on land and on (or in) water." Shockwave 3.016). So > a platoon of Marines, sitting in a pond, should scare the heck out of an > Ogre, especially one that just wants to get off the board. > > Does this make the Marines worth more than their listed 4 vp cost? > Possibly, and perhaps even probably. Mark that down as "clarify and > re-playtest for OM2." Um, While there can be no debate on what Ogre Miniatures says on this topic - its exactly as you've presented it, I don't agree that Ogre Minitures has any relevance to Ogre Hex. When there's a rules question about Ogre, nobody runs to "Gurps Ogre" to resolve it! In hex based rules questions, "Ogre Minitures" should speak with about the same authority as "Gurps Ogre", that is to say: no authority whatsoever. I'm puzzled, and bitter, that when I buy "Deluxe GEV" or "Shockwave", that the rules that come with it, and have been revised in the last 4 years, are considered subservient to, and less official than, a 12 year old, out of print, and heavily erratta-laden rulebook for a game with compeltely different spatial mechanics! Why not include OM rules instead. Without resorting to Ogre Minitures, or recieving this mailing list, or being psychic, THERE IS NO WAY FOR PLAYERS TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT MARINES. The relevant non-minis rules are the shockwave one you cited, and this one from GEV: 6.113 Water. An infantry unit in a water hex may not attack; its defense strength is unaffected. A GEV on water attacks and defends normally. An Ogre submerged in a water hex may not attack. It may not be attacked except by Howitzers, Mobile Howitzers, and Ogre missiles. Furthermore, all attacks made against the Ogre are at half strength. So if one looks only at Deluxe-GEV and Shockwave rules, it is crystal clear that only Ogres, and not "underwater units" get the defensive bonus. I can't even find a reference to marines being able to submerge themselves - so they're not even "underwater units"! Sincerely, Dave Morse ===== [Now that I've read it over again, that "on (or in) water" clause seems to be referring to two different modes. Given that Ogres were the only underwater units in G.E.V. itself, this implies that submerged marines act under the same rules as given for Ogres. Note that NO guidance is given for moving between being on the water and in it so I suppose that the infantry should be allowed to change depth bewteen the two modes freely, but only during their own movement phase. -HJC] ===== From: "Paul Chapman" Subject: Re: Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-based rulesquestions > rant ahead. PC directly CCed, so if he wants to reply in time for the > next installment he can. I appreciate that. > While there can be no debate on what Ogre Miniatures says on this topic > - its exactly as you've presented it, I don't agree that Ogre Minitures > has any relevance to Ogre Hex. They're both written by the same author, about the same game world, with a system that has many more similarities than differences. I believe they have a great deal of relevance to each other. > When there's a rules question about Ogre, nobody runs to "Gurps Ogre" to > resolve it! In hex based rules questions, "Ogre Minitures" should speak > with about the same authority as "Gurps Ogre", that is to say: no > authority whatsoever. As I said on the Ogre/GEV Yahoo group on 25 November 2002, in response to your (very similar) comment then: "When I need clarification on an Ogre/GEV rules question, I reference OM -- the rules are generally the same, but often written with a slightly different perspective. Between the two rules sets, I usually get a good view of the intentions of the designer." GURPS Ogre is a very different system from Ogre/GEV and OM, right Henry? :) [Yes, but I have a Pyramid article that'd fix this if ever printed. -HJC] However, this is largely irrelevant, as the question specifically asked about both GEV and OM rules. > I'm puzzled, and bitter, that when I buy "Deluxe GEV" or "Shockwave", > that the rules that come with it, and have been revised in the last 4 > years, are considered subservient to, and less official than, a 12 year > old, out of print, and heavily erratta-laden rulebook for a game with > compeltely different spatial mechanics! Why not include OM rules instead. I do not believe I have represented either DGEV or Shockwave as "subservient" to OM. If I have given that impression, I apologize. It is, to my mind, a companion piece in which the designer had much more room to expand and elaborate. > Without resorting to Ogre Minitures, or recieving this mailing list, or > being psychic, THERE IS NO WAY FOR PLAYERS TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSION > ABOUT MARINES. The relevant non-minis rules are the shockwave one you > cited, and this one from GEV: Obviously, I disagree. Here is my train of logic: Step 1) The question: "It depends on what the defense of marines in water is. Were you using Shockwave (no bonus) or Ogre Minis (almost unkillable)? Paul, can you'll errata some clarity here? (Water as woods is fine to me.)" Step 2) Check Shockwave 3.016 Marine Battlesuits. Hmm, says they can fight/move on/in water just fine. Ok, they swim on top and under the water. What does being underwater do for them? Step 3) Consult the Terrain Effects Table. Ogres, the only other unit that can submerge, gets the big defensive bonuses for being underwater. Ok, got it. Step 4) Check OM, page 16. Marines underwater are tough to kill. Ok, got it. Confirms my thoughts about Shockwave as well. > So if one looks only at Deluxe-GEV and Shockwave rules, it is crystal > clear that only Ogres, and not "underwater units" get the defensive If it were as simple as that, the question would not have been asked, and I wouldn't have come to a different conclusion than you. > bonus. I can't even find a reference to marines being able to submerge > themselves - so they're not even "underwater units"! Shockwave 3.016 "...[Marines] move and fight equally well on land and on (or in) water." I interpret that as "underwater units." [This has been an official message from Steve Jackson Games' Miniatures Division.] Paul Chapman http://www.sjgames.com/minis Miniatures Division Manager Steve Jackson Games paul@sjgames.com ===== From: David Morse Subject: Re: Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-based rulesquestions Even after that I still think the two rules sets contradict each other head-on, but I know there's no arguing with you. Last time you made a change, I wasn't very happy with the wording you used, so I thought this time I'd add my 2c suggestion before its cast in stone: GEV 6.113 Water. An infantry unit in a water hex may not attack; its defense strength is unaffected. A GEV on water attacks and defends normally. An underwater unit (such as an Ogre in a water hex) may not attack. It may not be attacked except by Howitzers, Mobile Howitzers, and Ogre Missiles. Furthermore, all attacks made against the underwater unit are at half strength. (But see 6.137 for an exception during overruns) [Essentially replaced "Ogre" with new "underwater unit" terminology] GEV 6.137 "Overrun" situations on water hexes. GEVs are unaffected by water. Ogres and infantry can enter water hexes, but cannot attack while there. Therefore, GEVs may sometimes overrun underwater units or infantry in the water, or vice versa. An overrun by GEVs has no effect on an underwater unit. In an overrun, hostile underwater units may fight each other, but Ogres may only use missiles. An overrun between GEVs and "swimming" infantry destroys the infantry (they cannot fire back). Surface units and hostile underwater units may occupy the same water hex without combat. [Essentially replaced "Ogre" with new "underwater unit" terminology] Shockwave 3.016 Marine Battlesuits. These counters come in three types, representing one, two, or three squads of "marine" infantry. Marines are treated for all purpose like regular infantry, except that they move and fight equally well on land and on water. Additionally, marines in water may specify that they are ending the move under water. In that case, they can not attack and are almost immune to attack. Exception: in overrun combat with other underwater units, marines may attack and (as usual for overruns) have their attack strength doubled. [Synthesized from Shockwave and Ogre Miniatures, with last sentence new] [Above 3 rules based on SJG Copyrighted material. I made changes which I hereby do NOT copyright, and SJG may - DM] __ If this is the way you want to go...personally I don't like marines to be useful for just one thing (killing submerged missileless Ogres). I'd rather see them somehow improved so they can also be an effective on-water screen for HWZ against GEVs. So IMHO they should get double or triple defense on the surface, and the aforementioned "underwater unit" defenses while submerged. There was some talk a while back about underwater unit's invulnerability being "cheesy", and I thought that the majority view was underwater units should be vulnerable to surface units, but get triple defense. Nothing was ever done on this though. __ And now for something completely different: I don't fancy the wording on GEV 6.134 (2) very much. I think it leads to a lot of rules questions (which I've posted below). I think a simple rewording would fix the section so that the answers to the rules questions become very clear. Here's the original GEV 6.134 Ogre overrun rules. ... (2) If an Ogre loses all its guns during overrun combat, it is removed from the overrun combat after two further enemy fire rounds and replaced in the hex (thus, when Ogres are involved, overrun combat may end with opposing units still in the same hex). If that Ogre was an attacker, it may then use any movement points it has remaining to leave the hex. ... Here's suggested revision, which stops talking about "guns", and starts talking about "fired weapons": GEV 6.134 Ogre overrun rules. ... (2) If an Ogre does not fire weapons for four consecutive fire rounds of overrun combat (including enemy fire rounds), it may chose to remove itself from the overrun combat and be replaced in the hex. If that Ogre was an attacker, it may then use any movement points it has remaining to leave the hex. Thus, when Ogres are involved, overrun combat may end with opposing units still in the same hex. Ramming does not constitute "firing a weapon". ... This is beneficial because it resolves these issues: 1) answers the question "Do remaining AP guns prevent an Ogre from weaseling out of overrun with a HVY"? with "No". (Correct?) 2) Strictly interpreted, the original rule only helps an Ogre in the ONE overrun where it LOSES its last gun -- Not in overruns its entered with no guns - those go on forever! Ack! 3) Lets an Ogre horde its missiles for the CP, instead of being forced into using them to prevent total tread destruction due to infinite rounds of overrun combat. (Assuming a missile is miraculously somehow the "last gun") 4) Is an empty missile rack a "gun" for these purposes? In the old wording that would allow infinite tread destruction. New wording removes ambiguity. ===== From: "Paul Chapman" Subject: Re: Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-basedrulesquestions > Even after that I still think the two rules sets contradict each other > head-on, but I know there's no arguing with you. Last time you made a I'm sorry you have that impression. I would have thought that the recent debate on the Ogre Mk. VI and Doppelsoldner would have illustrated my ability to be convinced. > change, I wasn't very happy with the wording you used, so I thought If by "last time" you are referring to the "Do GEVs stop at the edge of a lake?" question of last November, I must insist that I did not make a change; I clarified an ambiguous rule. As I recall, you confirmed my interpretation with SJ. > this time I'd add my 2c suggestion before its cast in stone: Interesting. I'll take a closer look at your suggestions when I have time to update the errata page. Although I note that you've removed the Marines ability to attack freely when submerged, which is very ambiguous in Shockwave (but not forbidden), and expressly permitted in OM. > unit" defenses while submerged. There was some talk a while back > about underwater unit's invulnerability being "cheesy", and I thought > that the majority view was underwater units should be vulnerable to > surface units, but get triple defense. Nothing was ever done on this > though. That would be a rules change, not errata, and so gets filed under "OM2." > And now for something completely different: > > I don't fancy the wording on GEV 6.134 (2) very much. I think it The wording of overrun combat in both GEV and OM is unclear. It definitely needs to be updated/clarified/fixed, but it is low on my priority list at the moment. I do plan on fixing it, but not until after GAMA (at the earliest). > 1) answers the question "Do remaining AP guns prevent an Ogre from > weaseling out of overrun with a HVY"? with "No". (Correct?) Correct. The new version will definitely point out that if the opponents are immune to the Ogre's remaining weapons, the overrun is ending. > 2) Strictly interpreted, the original rule only helps an Ogre in the > ONE overrun where it LOSES its last gun -- Not in overruns its > entered with no guns - those go on forever! Ack! I don't know how to respond to this one. > 3) Lets an Ogre horde its missiles for the CP, instead of being forced > into using them to prevent total tread destruction due to infinite > rounds of overrun combat. (Assuming a missile is miraculously > somehow the "last gun") It would also allow the Ogre to voluntarily end overrun, which violates the spirit of the combat -- i.e. two walk in, one walks out. > 4) Is an empty missile rack a "gun" for these purposes? In the old > wording that would allow infinite tread destruction. New wording > removes ambiguity. An empty MR is obviously _not_ be a gun for purposes of continuing overrun combat -- it can't attack! [This has been an official message from Steve Jackson Games' Miniatures Division.] Paul Chapman http://www.sjgames.com/minis Miniatures Division Manager Steve Jackson Games paul@sjgames.com ============================== From: stephan beal Subject: Marine Defense > From: Andrew Walters > #3 The Ogre can keep killing things until its taken a beating, then > drop into the water and escape unscathed (its a pretty sure bet you > have no HWZ left at that point). To prevent this and force him to > leave the honest way (and thus earlier), take a platoon of Marines > and keep them out of the action during the entry phase, then get them > behind the Ogre, into the water, blocking the river. > > From: Henry > #3 It depends on what the defense of marines in water is. Were you > using Shockwave (no bonus) or Ogre Minis (almost unkillable)? Paul, can > you'll errata some clarity here? (Water as woods is fine to me.) ... > From: "Paul Chapman" > I'm going to disagree with Henry here; both Shockwave and OM give Marines > the same protection. ... > The Marines greatest strength is the ability to attack while in/under water > ("...fight equally well on land and on (or in) water." Shockwave 3.016). So > a platoon of Marines, sitting in a pond, should scare the heck out of an > Ogre, especially one that just wants to get off the board. Okay, i'm gonna open up a can of worms here, because we've got some really flimsy arguments on this point so far (no offense intended)... "Fight equally well" implies that DEF is NOT modified, since DEF is half of the inputs for the combat ratio calculation (i.e., a "fight"). (i'm going off the DEF bonus which Henry implies here, but i don't have Minis, so i don't know if this is an explicite rule in OM.) "Equally", by it's very definition, means "no difference." In this sense, because of the way Marines are defined, the basis off of which we define "equally" is "the same as infantry", which implies "equal to land-based combat." Okay, from that logic it would imply that "equally well" means a Marine may fight while "in" water. However, "in" water is a whole other can of lexical worms: "In water" does NOT necessarily translate to "submerged" - you're "in the water" while bathing, after all. In fact that "partially submerged" is arguably the most common interpretation of "in water" when looking at common usage of the phrase in the wider context of modern English usage. If i say "the man is under water", that is easily interpretted differently than "the man is in the water." The exact translation depends on the exact context, but normally those phrases imply two different states. i'm not at all convinced that the simple qualifier "(or in)" implies that Marines can assualt a submerged Ogre, especially since "in" and "under" are different words with different meanings. "Under"[water] and "sub"[merged], on the other hand, are essentially the same word, and the Marine definition says nothing with 'sub' or 'under' in it. If we're going to say that Marines "in" water are assumed to be submerged, then i must argue that marines "in" water may not be attacked except under the same conditions as a submerged Ogre can. i.e., if a GEV can't attack an Ogre which is "in" the water, why can he attack a marine which is "in" the water? On the flip-side, if we are going to say that marines are not submerged, how can we allow them to attack submerged Ogres? The wording, in all cases presented so far, is simply too ambiguous to say for sure. Are we looking at another "infantry riding tanks"-type rule, where Marines can either submerge or surface during specific phases of the turn? The "on (or in) water", to me, has always implied that marines could shoot at (for example) a passing/overrunning hovercraft or a land-locked unit a hex away, but the rules for the Ogres are pretty clear on the fact that Ogres may, when underwater, only be attacked by HWZ, Ogre Missiles: GEV 6.113: An Ogre submerged... may not be attacked except by Howitzer, Mobile Howitzers, and Ogre missiles. (However, to be fair: Marines didn't exist when that text was published. On the other hand, marine weapons are NOWHERE near the caliber of the M/HWZ, so the implication is that they cannot attack submerged Ogres.) 6.113 continues: "Furthermore, all attacks made against the Ogre are at half strength" [while submerged] which implies that even 3 Marine squads, assuming they are submerged, are essentially useless against a submerged Ogre (combined 1.5 attack strength). The phrase "all attacks" does not leave any lexical wiggle-room to fit "except for Marines" in there, and the description of Marines does not (in my mind) imply that they can attack a _submerged_ unit (for the above-explained reasons). If we're going to allow marines to attack underwater Ogres based on the above explanation of "fight equally well", then i must argue that we must allow GEVs to do the same, because Steve Jackson wrote thusly: GEV 6.113: A GEV on water attacks and defends normally. That sounds like the same explanation as the Marines. Okay, it's minus the "(or in)" qualifier, but that qualifier would seem to be of no functional difference (at least in the non-minis version, which is my only point of reference). Perhaps i'm being over-anal, and i appologize if that is the case. One of the important lessons which "Magic: The Gathering" has taught us is that precise/consistent wording and the usage of words with *concrete* definitions is essential to having a clear set of rules (and thus, by extension, a common understanding of the rules). ("In" water is the ambiguous definition i'm pointing at here.) Okay, closing the can of worms now. i hope i haven't offended/annoyed anyone. > Does this make the Marines worth more than their listed 4 vp cost? > Possibly, and perhaps even probably. Mark that down as "clarify and > re-playtest for OM2." Don't forget the "paper version"! (Some of us don't use the minis - too expensive to ship overseas and not enough space in small European apartments to play. Hell, for that matter there's not enough space on the small European streets to play OM.) > > The terrain effects matrix implies this by NOT mentioning the superheavy > > at all... ... > > [And then it was fixed in the errata at > > http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/errata/deluxe-gev.html -HJC] > > "Terrain Effects Table: The Water row of the Heavy Tank, Superheavy Tank, > Ogre column has a misprint. The HVY cannot enter. The SHVY behaves as an > Ogre." > > To me that pretty clearly says the SHVY can move in water. So what's the official verdict on that? i cannot interpret the published texts (or the errata) in any way other than "SHVYs may move in water [as an Ogre]." After all, they *explicitely* move "as an Ogre" and nowhere is it even implied that they cannot enter water. (Oh, man, is that "in" the water or "on" the water? Okay, seeing as tanks generally do not float (but Marines tend to), i think we can safely assume they're "under" water. ;) -- ----- stephan@wanderinghorse.net http://qub.sourceforge.net - http://radioaqtiph.sourceforge.net http://countermoves.sourceforge.net - http://stephan.rootonfire.org "Now I'm not the type of person who likes to trespass, but sometimes you just find yourself over the line." -- Bob Dylan ============================== From: Sethkimmel@aol.com Subject: Boat Ramps > [If the GEV map is ever revised, it might be fun to put a few beach and > ramp markers on the map. -HJC] or gives some more things for CE's to do: build ramps and slopes for GEV's (or destroy them....). Additionally, a Mobile Bridge could use its' bridge as a ramp.... ============================= Send all submissions or mailing list changes or problems to ogre@sjgames.com Archives for this mailing list may be found at http://www.io.com/~hcobb/ General online support for the OGRE game is at http://www.sjgames.com/ogre Ogre, G.E.V., Shockwave and other products mentioned here are trademarks or registered trademarks of Steve Jackson Games. All rights are reserved by SJ Games. This material is used here in accordance with the SJ Games online policy at http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html