Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Ogre» Forums » Rules

Subject: Some finicky rule clarifications :) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm new to Ogre, and I've got doubts about some edge cases in the rules. I would be very grateful if you kind folks could enlighten me about them.



Disabling a plain Command Post

Hardened CPs do get disabled like everything else (3.05.2).

Zero-defense units rarely get a chance to get disabled, but it can happen: An MCP could move into swamp/rubble; cruise missiles can disable MCPs and trucks.

But in the context of cruise-missile detonation, 10.04 mentions "a D result has no effect on CPs".

I get that that's almost certainly intended to minimize record-keeping, but since I don't know the history of the rules, I can't tell if the thinking behind it was "we believe this makes absolutely no material difference anyway, it just makes handling simpler" (which would be an oversight, because e.g. two consecutive cruise missiles could "D" the same CP without fratriciding) or "we are well aware this makes a difference, but on the balance of things, making it a special case improves the game".

I guess my questions here are:
(a) is it an oversight?
(b1) if it is, should CPs just get disabled like everything else?
(b2) if it's not, should it be interpreted as CPs always ignoring D results, even outside the context of a cruise missile?



Spillover fire against D0 units

If I try to interpret the text as faithfully as possible, it reads as an automatic X result (because defense 0), downgraded to D (because spillover).

My guess is that this isn't the intention of the rules though, because when it does come into effect, it has some pretty senseless consequences.

Am I missing some subtlety in the rules? Is there a known resolution?

(I've thought of a house rule of simply treating defense 0 as defense ½ for spillover purposes.)


Edit: After posting I found: "3.03: … Truck … undergoing a spillover attack, has a defense strength of 1". Says nothing about other D0 units, but makes some basis to generalize.




Jetpacks!

5.07.2: "No units except infantry may enter the hex on the bridge and leave on the river, or vice versa"

I'm getting that right, am I? Their armour has jetpacks, and they float up from the water onto the bridge? Because that's a pretty majestic visual that would bear mentioning in the text



Wheeled units in damaged town hex

The reference sheet says trucks can't enter damaged towns at all. The FAQ mentions they can, but without calling out the ref. sheet as mistaken. Should I just disregard the ref. sheet in this case?

Either way, a truck can find itself inside a damaged town (at least because the terrain only got damaged after the truck entered). When that happens, am I right in assuming the truck still gets the defense boost? It's not totally clear from the rules, but it makes sense.



Ramps vs. beaches

It's not spelled out, but I see it as implied in 2.03.1 that a GEV using a ramp doesn't have to pause for water-land boundary. Is that right?

Then, for a clear hex with a road passing through it, a ramp and a beach are in effect the same thing.
The only difference between these two types of interfaces is that beaches only connect to clear hexes (with or without roads) while ramps only connect to roads (in clear or non-clear hexes).

Is all of that right?



Stacking after overrun

Assuming standard stacking limit of 5 -
Suppose I move 6 light tanks into an overrun against 5 superheavies, and that's the last movement point for each of my light tanks. There's a one-in-a-million chance I might win with no losses, and end up with 6 units in the hex with no movement points left.

Does that mean that, because of such a theoretical possibility, I'm not allowed to even start such an overrun?
I.e. with 6 or more attackers who have no more movement left - or who stand a chance of being stranded in the hex for any other reason.

It's the only way I can interpret the rules as written, but I also can't imagine that was their intent, because the situation is tricky enough that it surely would have been called out explicitly.

I can come up with decent house rules to deal with this one, but I'd like to know the intent of the official rules.

(I see something similar has been asked in the FAQ/errata thread at the SJG forums, but it hasn't gotten any attention.)



Preselecting cruise missile targets

If I'm firing a single cruise missile, do I have to write down the target hex ahead of time?



Fighting CPs

3.05: "CPs have no attack strength except when overrun; then they have a strength of 1."

Does this apply to MCPs and HCPs too?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I am not exactly sure how to address any of these. First of all, you have posted in the Ogre forums, and most of your questions just do not apply to the Ogre (classic orange map) game.

Zero defense units are pretty weak vs. nuclear shells. If they get looked at funny, they are X.

CP are disabled by missiles.

Yes, infantry are "jump infantry". Lots of "history" here and yes you have the imagery right. They do not hover (no reason to stay up as it just makes them targets - In fact, note that there are no flyers in the game.)

I always played no truck movement in rubble.

I always pre-designated targets. Some people probably do not because the rules state that fire is not simultaneous. I just treat missiles a little different (when I bother to play with them at all).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Martin.

Am I in the wrong forum? I understood that with the Ogre and G.E.V. game series now unified, this would be the place. My questions were all provoked by the "Ogre Designer's Edition rulebook".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I wondered about that. I think you would have better luck posting in the ODE forum. This is the forum for the 6th edition of Ogre, which uses some components from the ODE but does not include GEV (which I am not sure I understand - I would have published a 6e GEV game as well or just been happy with ODE!).

Yes, most of us play "both games" (they are 90% the same game). I used to introduce the mechanics using Ogre and then went on to GEV. The basic Ogre scenario is pretty much a classic game all by itself.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Desert Scribe
msg tools
I thought this section was for all versions of Ogre. I scroll down and see posts from years before Ogre 6th Edition came out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DesertScrb wrote:
I thought this section was for all versions of Ogre. I scroll down and see posts from years before Ogre 6th Edition came out.
By bgg standards there really should be a separate entry for ODE and 6th edition, but I think they are just treated as different editions of the same game, meaning one forum for both...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cat O\'Mighty
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ze_German_Guy wrote:
By bgg standards...


This is one of those games where the standard BGG database model is just a very bad fit. The discussion for Ogre should not be parcelled out into edition ghettoes!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Cat_O wrote:
Ze_German_Guy wrote:
By bgg standards...

This is one of those games where the standard BGG database model is just a very bad fit. The discussion for Ogre should not be parcelled out into edition ghettoes!
I agree with your second sentence, but I believe BGGs model in that case is to create a family and use that page for discussions pertaining to all members. Of course every time I raise that point for any game I am promptly reminded that no one uses family forums so why should people start using them? Anybody else spot the circular reasoning or is it just me? laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Rock

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:

Disabling a plain Command Post

Hardened CPs do get disabled like everything else (3.05.2).

Zero-defense units rarely get a chance to get disabled, but it can happen: An MCP could move into swamp/rubble; cruise missiles can disable MCPs and trucks.

But in the context of cruise-missile detonation, 10.04 mentions "a D result has no effect on CPs".

I get that that's almost certainly intended to minimize record-keeping, but since I don't know the history of the rules, I can't tell if the thinking behind it was "we believe this makes absolutely no material difference anyway, it just makes handling simpler" (which would be an oversight, because e.g. two consecutive cruise missiles could "D" the same CP without fratriciding) or "we are well aware this makes a difference, but on the balance of things, making it a special case improves the game".

I guess my questions here are:
(a) is it an oversight?
(b1) if it is, should CPs just get disabled like everything else?
(b2) if it's not, should it be interpreted as CPs always ignoring D results, even outside the context of a cruise missile?


It's not an oversight; this one is a question of context. The Cruise Missile results are a special case and the "D" effect being ignored by a CP is unique to that specific type of attack (i.e., you are resolving the blast wave results of hitting the CP, not a direct tac-nuke hit).

Also note that it refers to ALL CPs, not just D0 ones.

Quote:

Spillover fire against D0 units

If I try to interpret the text as faithfully as possible, it reads as an automatic X result (because defense 0), downgraded to D (because spillover).

My guess is that this isn't the intention of the rules though, because when it does come into effect, it has some pretty senseless consequences.

Am I missing some subtlety in the rules? Is there a known resolution?

(I've thought of a house rule of simply treating defense 0 as defense ½ for spillover purposes.)


Edit: After posting I found: "3.03: … Truck … undergoing a spillover attack, has a defense strength of 1". Says nothing about other D0 units, but makes some basis to generalize.

Citing 3.03 as a reference for a general case is an error. It's a special case that trucks get a D1 during spillover that has nothing to do with any other D0 units. It's worth noting that most people aren't even aware that trucks get a D1 in spillover. The bigger question is why trucks get special treatment in the first place. The answer is "because they do" (but I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it).

I would like to know what "senseless consequences" you are citing that make a disabled CP a bad thing. There's nothing special about this; CPs can be disabled, so a D value from spillover makes sense. Since CPs can attack during overruns, having them disabled reduces their attack strength, MCPs can't move for a turn, etc.

Quote:

Jetpacks!

5.07.2: "No units except infantry may enter the hex on the bridge and leave on the river, or vice versa"

I'm getting that right, am I? Their armour has jetpacks, and they float up from the water onto the bridge? Because that's a pretty majestic visual that would bear mentioning in the text

Yes, you have this correct, although "jetpack" is a loose assumption. It's never been formally stated they have jetpacks, regardless what illustrations have been put in the rules over the years. However, 5.07.2 is good evidence of at least some minimal "jump jet" ability.

And yes, that would be a cool visual. :-)

Quote:

Wheeled units in damaged town hex

The reference sheet says trucks can't enter damaged towns at all. The FAQ mentions they can, but without calling out the ref. sheet as mistaken. Should I just disregard the ref. sheet in this case?

Either way, a truck can find itself inside a damaged town (at least because the terrain only got damaged after the truck entered). When that happens, am I right in assuming the truck still gets the defense boost? It's not totally clear from the rules, but it makes sense.

Yes, the reference sheet needs to be updated (but it's worth noting that the FAQ doc is specifically referring to the Terrain Effects Table as being wrong and *does* call out the Reference sheet as being in error).

As to your question; yes, a truck still gets a defensive boost while in town. "damaged" terrain does not change the stats of the terrain type at all. The only thing that happens with terrain that's damaged is any roads/rails are cut, and it's easier to subsequently rubble the hex.
Quote:


Ramps vs. beaches

It's not spelled out, but I see it as implied in 2.03.1 that a GEV using a ramp doesn't have to pause for water-land boundary. Is that right?

Then, for a clear hex with a road passing through it, a ramp and a beach are in effect the same thing.
The only difference between these two types of interfaces is that beaches only connect to clear hexes (with or without roads) while ramps only connect to roads (in clear or non-clear hexes).

Is all of that right?

Yes

Quote:

Stacking after overrun

Assuming standard stacking limit of 5 -
Suppose I move 6 light tanks into an overrun against 5 superheavies, and that's the last movement point for each of my light tanks. There's a one-in-a-million chance I might win with no losses, and end up with 6 units in the hex with no movement points left.

Does that mean that, because of such a theoretical possibility, I'm not allowed to even start such an overrun?
I.e. with 6 or more attackers who have no more movement left - or who stand a chance of being stranded in the hex for any other reason.

It's the only way I can interpret the rules as written, but I also can't imagine that was their intent, because the situation is tricky enough that it surely would have been called out explicitly.

I can come up with decent house rules to deal with this one, but I'd like to know the intent of the official rules.

(I see something similar has been asked in the FAQ/errata thread at the SJG forums, but it hasn't gotten any attention.)

The outcome is explicitly stated in the rules.
"8.06 Movement and stacking before overruns"

Unfortunately, the naming of the section is poor. It actually spends more time talking about what happens after the overrun is over. In the case of your question: You may bring in any number of units to use in the overrun, but after the overrun is finished, the stacking limit MUST be observed; even if it means removing units.

There should really be an errata to change
"8.06 Movement and stacking before overruns"
to
"8.06 Movement and stacking during overruns"
to make it easier to find

Quote:

Preselecting cruise missile targets

If I'm firing a single cruise missile, do I have to write down the target hex ahead of time?

No; the target hex is irrelevant. All that matters is the CM survives until the firing player says the CM hits the ground (or it gets shot down). There is no requirement to preselect the target. 10.02 is pretty clear on the process.

Quote:

Fighting CPs

3.05: "CPs have no attack strength except when overrun; then they have a strength of 1."

Does this apply to MCPs and HCPs too?

Yes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
granitepenguin wrote:
hemflit wrote:

Jetpacks!

5.07.2: "No units except infantry may enter the hex on the bridge and leave on the river, or vice versa"

I'm getting that right, am I? Their armour has jetpacks, and they float up from the water onto the bridge? Because that's a pretty majestic visual that would bear mentioning in the text

Yes, you have this correct, although "jetpack" is a loose assumption. It's never been formally stated they have jetpacks, regardless what illustrations have been put in the rules over the years. However, 5.07.2 is good evidence of at least some minimal "jump jet" ability.

And yes, that would be a cool visual. :-)


Feast your eyes on this...



Edit: Embedded link isn't working for me, so: https://youtu.be/NCWqm_is95s
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the very thorough and enlightening reply!

granitepenguin wrote:
hemflit wrote:

10.04 mentions "a D result has no effect on CPs".


It's not an oversight; this one is a question of context. The Cruise Missile results are a special case and the "D" effect being ignored by a CP is unique to that specific type of attack (i.e., you are resolving the blast wave results of hitting the CP, not a direct tac-nuke hit).

Also note that it refers to ALL CPs, not just D0 ones.


Hmmm, how certain is that last bit?

I'm questioning it because the "no effect on CPs" comes from a footnote to the line "Any D0 unit or any GEV", and hardened CPs are treated on separate lines. If it was really supposed to apply to HCPs, that was really bad placement for the rule.

Either way, do you have any idea why CPs get this special treatment?

At 4 hexes from a detonation, the shockwave is more destructive to a disabled D1/D2 tank than to a disabled D0 command post, though at other ranges there doesn't seem to be any general trend that tanks should be more vulnerable than a basic CP.

Quote:

Quote:

Spillover fire against D0 units

If I try to interpret the text as faithfully as possible, it reads as an automatic X result (because defense 0), downgraded to D (because spillover).

My guess is that this isn't the intention of the rules though, because when it does come into effect, it has some pretty senseless consequences.
(…)

Citing 3.03 as a reference for a general case is an error. It's a special case that trucks get a D1 during spillover that has nothing to do with any other D0 units. It's worth noting that most people aren't even aware that trucks get a D1 in spillover. The bigger question is why trucks get special treatment in the first place. The answer is "because they do" (but I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it).

I would like to know what "senseless consequences" you are citing that make a disabled CP a bad thing. There's nothing special about this; CPs can be disabled, so a D value from spillover makes sense. Since CPs can attack during overruns, having them disabled reduces their attack strength, MCPs can't move for a turn, etc.


Oh, the "Senseless consequences" are not to disabling a CP (which feels perfectly reasonable), they're to the interpretation "any spillover is an automatic D result against defense-0 targets".

I'm picturing a convoy of trucks* that happen to just be in the same hex - half the size of New York's Central Park - with one side of a very minimal firefight. They all get automatically disabled, and with a follow-up volley, automatically destroyed. I get they're vulnerable, but this feels like too much.

* Well, trucks were what I had in mind when I first wrote that, and I only found their spillover special treatment after I had posted.

I could imagine some similar thinking was what motivated that spillover exception in 3.03?

I'm left wondering now why the same thinking didn't apply to other D0 units. Sure, I'll never have 3 or 4 MCPs just rolling around the countryside, but it's still a totally unnecessary corner case.

Quote:

The outcome is explicitly stated in the rules.
"8.06 Movement and stacking before overruns"
(…)
the stacking limit MUST be observed; even if it means removing units.


Ahhh! I just assumed the "removing" there was to another hex, spending movement points.

Jeebus, just taking live units off the map goes so against the game's grain. I could abuse that to quickly escape with some trucks or crawlers for victory points.
(Possible house-rule mitigation: opponent picks what gets removed.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:
I'm picturing a convoy of trucks* that happen to just be in the same hex - half the size of New York's Central Park - with one side of a very minimal firefight. They all get automatically disabled, and with a follow-up volley, automatically destroyed. I get they're vulnerable, but this feels like too much.


Armor units fire tactical nuclear shells. A near-miss is still a hit.

hemflit wrote:
Ahhh! I just assumed the "removing" there was to another hex, spending movement points.


You're overthinking it. In practice it never, ever happens that one team has more than 5 armor units in a hex after an overrun. i've been playing this game since 88 or 89 and i've not seen this happen a single time.

hemflit wrote:
Jeebus, just taking live units off the map goes so against the game's grain. I could abuse that to quickly escape with some trucks or crawlers for victory points.
(Possible house-rule mitigation: opponent picks what gets removed.)


i'm not clear what you mean by that. Are you expecting Trucks and Crawlers to enter and survive an overrun? If so, note that the units are "removed" as in "destroyed", not moved to an adjacent hex and not "escaped". Yes, the rule wording could be more explicit there, but this case never comes up in practice, so it's likely that nobody's complained loudly enough about the wording that they've felt compelled to elaborate on it.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Rock

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:
Thanks for the very thorough and enlightening reply!

granitepenguin wrote:

Also note that it refers to ALL CPs, not just D0 ones.


Hmmm, how certain is that last bit?

I'm questioning it because the "no effect on CPs" comes from a footnote to the line "Any D0 unit or any GEV", and hardened CPs are treated on separate lines. If it was really supposed to apply to HCPs, that was really bad placement for the rule.

Either way, do you have any idea why CPs get this special treatment?

I'll give you that one. I agree that due to the placement in the footnote, it applies only to D0 CPs.

There's no specific wording why they get this special treatment, but for a standard CP you can sprinkle a little handwavium and say it's a structure that doesn't get blown over. The reason why it's D0 CPs and GEVs is because the GEVs are susceptible to being blown over/around. It's not much of stretch to say the same thing for a MCP that can stake itself down.

The game isn't meant to be a simulation of real life; it's an approximation of "bad stuff" happening. Some things just are what they are.

Quote:

Quote:

I would like to know what "senseless consequences" you are citing that make a disabled CP a bad thing.


Oh, the "Senseless consequences" are not to disabling a CP (which feels perfectly reasonable), they're to the interpretation "any spillover is an automatic D result against defense-0 targets".

I'm picturing a convoy of trucks* that happen to just be in the same hex - half the size of New York's Central Park - with one side of a very minimal firefight. They all get automatically disabled, and with a follow-up volley, automatically destroyed. I get they're vulnerable, but this feels like too much.

I could imagine some similar thinking was what motivated that spillover exception in 3.03?

I'm left wondering now why the same thinking didn't apply to other D0 units. Sure, I'll never have 3 or 4 MCPs just rolling around the countryside, but it's still a totally unnecessary corner case.


You underestimate just how fragile Trucks are, and how damaging being in the wrong place at the wrong time with tac-nukes flying around. There is no such thing as a "very minimal firefight" with nukes. Don't forget, it's possible for the original target to be missed, and spillover successfully hits other units. In an area 1 mile across, I have little problem imagining enough spillover from a near miss doing damage.

As for why Trucks and not other D0 units (i.e., MCPs), that is probably another one of those "CPs are small buildings, not vehicles" things. personally, I don't see the real need to have all the special cases for trucks, but they do exist, so until that changes, it is what it is.

Quote:

Ahhh! I just assumed the "removing" there was to another hex, spending movement points.

Jeebus, just taking live units off the map goes so against the game's grain. I could abuse that to quickly escape with some trucks or crawlers for victory points.
(Possible house-rule mitigation: opponent picks what gets removed.)

yeah... no. "Removing" is not a good thing; it means "destroyed", as in "You must discard units to be in compliance with the stacking rules, giving VP to the enemy in the process".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Rock

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:

You're overthinking it. In practice it never, ever happens that one team has more than 5 armor units in a hex after an overrun. i've been playing this game since 88 or 89 and i've not seen this happen a single time.


Never say never. You just aren't trying hard enough. ;-)

I *have* seen it, but it is exceptionally rare.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks!

Quote:
hemflit wrote:
Ahhh! I just assumed the "removing" there was to another hex, spending movement points.


You're overthinking it. In practice it never, ever happens that one team has more than 5 armor units in a hex after an overrun. i've been playing this game since 88 or 89 and i've not seen this happen a single time.


Please don't get me wrong! It's not only about "oh dear, what on earth will I possibly do if this unlikely thing happens", it's also about "what is the intention of the rules here" and "if the authors haven't foreseen this case, what is a reasonable resolution". (And in that last case, possibly ending with "Now I have an errata proposal".)

Some of us feel a little uneasy when we don't understand what game rules are meant to do in some possible situation, no matter how speculative. Especially so in a competitive game, where if it did happen in practice, any ad-hoc ruling would end up favouring one player.

BTW, some dude over at SJG forums reported actually ending an overrun with 6 GEVs in one hex. Not that it should make much of a difference whether it's already happened to one of us, when the possibility itself can affect tactical choices.

Quote:
i'm not clear what you mean by that. Are you expecting Trucks and Crawlers to enter and survive an overrun?


Yes, possibly, if someone is gearing up to horribly take advantage of the letter of the rule. Not talking about a typical overrun.

Imagine I have several fragile units that I want to get off the map ASAP, because they are worth victory points to you if you destroy them. If I spot a lone LT GEV (for example), I might be able to overrun it with five "normal" fighting units plus all the fragile ones. How much damage is that LT GEV going to do before it dies?


I mean, you're asking what I meant, so that was my thinking before you explained that "removed" is supposed to mean "destroyed". Which indeed could have been expressed much more clearly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks again, David!

I guess that at this point I'm trying to explore the possibility that some of those weirder bits could actually be straight-out errors in the rules.

My weirdest case is this:

Suppose you have two CPs, one of them D0 and the other D2, both of them already disabled, and both 4 hexes away from a CM detonation. The D0 one has a 3-in-6 chance of being destroyed, and the D2 one a 4-in-6 chance. That really doesn't look intentionally designed!

Maybe the intention was "all kinds of CPs, for whatever reason, ignore D's in detonation" but that rule was then written in the wrong place so now it doesn't actually have the effect it was supposed to.

I'd prefer to imagine the intention was "disabling makes no difference to a plain non-mobile non-hardened CP, so to reduce bookkeeping let's just mention in the footnote here that they ignore D's", because fixing that error would actually make the text simpler and remove one special case. But I don't know the history of the rules, so that's really just speculation.


I should probably take this over to the errata/FAQ thread, but since we're already talking about it, does it look like I'm missing something important above?


granitepenguin wrote:
You underestimate just how fragile Trucks are, and how damaging being in the wrong place at the wrong time with tac-nukes flying around. There is no such thing as a "very minimal firefight" with nukes. Don't forget, it's possible for the original target to be missed, and spillover successfully hits other units. In an area 1 mile across, I have little problem imagining enough spillover from a near miss doing damage.


Got it, and I'm not contradicting you, I just want to clarify that my problem in the imagination department wasn't with accepting that that kind of a thing can easily happen; it was just about it always happening automatically with no chance of avoiding it.

(For trucks it's a moot point now, because of that special case in 3.03.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephan Beal
Germany
Geltendorf
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:
I'd prefer to imagine the intention was "disabling makes no difference to a plain non-mobile non-hardened CP, so to reduce bookkeeping let's just mention in the footnote here that they ignore D's", because fixing that error would actually make the text simpler and remove one special case. But I don't know the history of the rules, so that's really just speculation.


Maybe this resolves it: the counters for immobile CP have never (in any edition) had a "disabled" side. The implication is that the rules don't foresee that they will/can become disabled.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Rock

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:

Suppose you have two CPs, one of them D0 and the other D2, both of them already disabled, and both 4 hexes away from a CM detonation. The D0 one has a 3-in-6 chance of being destroyed, and the D2 one a 4-in-6 chance. That really doesn't look intentionally designed!

You aren't reading the table correctly. You read across to the distance, then up to the ratio
D0 CP (disabled) - 4 hexes away is a 2-1 attack. A 2-1 attack is:
1: NE
2-3: D
4-6: X
it's a 87% chance (2-6) for a D0

D2 CP (disabled) - 4 hexes away is a 1-1 attack:
1-2: NE
3-4: D
5-6: X
it's a 66% chance (3-6) for a D2

Quote:

Got it, and I'm not contradicting you, I just want to clarify that my problem in the imagination department wasn't with accepting that that kind of a thing can easily happen; it was just about it always happening automatically with no chance of avoiding it.

That's fine. For a D0 unit, it's a surprise that it _doesn't_ get automatically destroyed. Something that automatically dies from any attack, should automatically die from two 1/2-strength attacks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vladimir Filipović
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sgbeal wrote:
Maybe this resolves it: the counters for immobile CP have never (in any edition) had a "disabled" side. The implication is that the rules don't foresee that they will/can become disabled.


Hm, that's a good catch, but I don't think it's the whole story.

Some googling suggests the original G.E.V. did have CP counters with a "disabled" side, and they at least look immobile.

The current rulebook explicitly allows that basic CPs can be placed in towns for an improved defense (3.05) - which lets them get disabled, no matter what counters we have on hand.


granitepenguin wrote:
You aren't reading the table correctly. You read across to the distance, then up to the ratio
D0 CP (disabled) - 4 hexes away is a 2-1 attack. A 2-1 attack is:
1: NE
2-3: D
4-6: X
it's a 87% chance (2-6) for a D0


That's if D0 CPs wouldn't uniquely ignore D results from detonations. (Which I'd prefer!)

But, rules strictly as written, they do ignore those results, so it's only a 50% chance (4-6).

That's actually my argument for why that rule may likely have gotten mis-phrased, originating from a different (simpler) intention.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Rock

Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hemflit wrote:
granitepenguin wrote:
You aren't reading the table correctly. You read across to the distance, then up to the ratio
D0 CP (disabled) - 4 hexes away is a 2-1 attack. A 2-1 attack is:
1: NE
2-3: D
4-6: X
it's a 87% chance (2-6) for a D0


That's if D0 CPs wouldn't uniquely ignore D results from detonations. (Which I'd prefer!)

But, rules strictly as written, they do ignore those results, so it's only a 50% chance (4-6).

That's actually my argument for why that rule may likely have gotten mis-phrased, originating from a different (simpler) intention.


I think we're on the same page now. I see what you mean about the clunkiness of where things are placed. Looking at the original version of the rules (Shockwave, 1984), the wording is identical, so there's no evidence of any prior wording to clear it up; it's always been ambiguous.

I think this is worthy of errata to clarify the intention. It does not make sense that a D0 CP should be able to ignore a "D", while a D2 (or D1) HCP does not. That's part of why my reading of it has always been "all CPs", not just D0 CPs. It does feel like an unnecessary special case for D0 CPs.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.