Ambushes

[rbodleyscott]

I have lost the thread in which this was discussed before, but hopefully the following wording addresses the various issues about deploying ambushes seen by coming over a hill, and what happens if deployment is blocked or impossible within the rules constraints:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can go nearer to any enemy battle group than the first base placed. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers. An ambush that cannot be placed for any reason is considered dispersed and destroyed.

[lawrenceg]

I have lost the thread in which this was discussed before, but hopefully the following wording addresses the various issues about deploying ambushes seen by coming over a hill, and what happens if deployment is blocked or impossible within the rules constraints:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can go nearer to any enemy battle group than the first base placed. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers. An ambush that cannot be placed for any reason is considered dispersed and destroyed.

So if I advance one BG on the left hand edge of the table and one on the right hand edge of the table, then approach an ambush, there's a good chance I can force it to deploy in a column and with careful placement of BGs I may be able to cheesily destroy it. I think this is a bit harsh.

The rest of the thread is in the "Changes from 6.0" topic.

I'd prefer something like the following, which would apply to voluntary revelation in your own turn as well as detection by enemy moves.

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker, facing any of its edges. Then deploy the other bases of the battle group in any legal formation around this base. If possible, each of the other bases must be placed where it cannot be seen by any enemy. If visible to the enemy, it cannot be placed closer to the nearest enemy battlegroup than the first base placed. A base that cannot be placed for any reason is lost. A commander who was ambushing with the battle group must be placed in legal contact with it. If the ambush was revealed by a moving enemy battle group, the enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

[rbodleyscott]

A base that cannot be placed for any reason is lost.

More lenient, but still does not prevent your cheesy BG destruction plan.

Of course, if the enemy sees this coming he can reveal his ambush early (in his turn).

Another possibility would be to make an ambush that cannot be "legally" deployed evade away from the nearest enemy - like troops near an arriving flank march.

[sagji]

I have two suggestions.

1) Rather than loosing the whole unit if it can't be fully placed, loose only the bases that can't be placed. This may need to be an option as it is better to place 8 of 10 MF, but better to disperse all Elephants assuming thy would then only count as 1 AP instead of 2 AP for destroyed.

2) Allow, or require, a bigger ambush marker - or use multiple squares (say up to 4) in a legal formation.
A more advanced version is to limit the maximum number of real squares based on the BG size (1 square per 2 bases for foot, 1 per base for mounted), plus upto 4 dummy bases. When a dummy base is "seen" it can be revealled as a dummy and removed. Otherwise or if a real base is "seen" then all the dummies are removed and the BG deployed on the real bases.

[rbodleyscott]

I have two suggestions.

1) Rather than loosing the whole unit if it can't be fully placed, loose only the bases that can't be placed. This may need to be an option as it is better to place 8 of 10 MF, but better to disperse all Elephants assuming thy would then only count as 1 AP instead of 2 AP for destroyed.

I think this may be the best bet.

However, destroyed is destroyed. (2 APs). There is no separate category for "dispersed". (We might need to avoid the word, therefore).

2) Allow, or require, a bigger ambush marker - or use multiple squares (say up to 4) in a legal formation.
A more advanced version is to limit the maximum number of real squares based on the BG size (1 square per 2 bases for foot, 1 per base for mounted), plus upto 4 dummy bases. When a dummy base is "seen" it can be revealled as a dummy and removed. Otherwise or if a real base is "seen" then all the dummies are removed and the BG deployed on the real bases.

We would prefer to avoid so large a change. (And the increased complexity).

[lawrenceg]

A base that cannot be placed for any reason is lost.

More lenient, but still does not prevent your cheesy BG destruction plan.

Not on its own, but my suggested rule on allowable placement is also more lenient, which makes it almost impossible to engineer the cheese in the first place.

With your suggestion you just need a BG to bypass the ambush on one side, then approach with another BG at 45 degrees to the marker on the other side and it will be very difficult to place a base that is not closer to one of these two BGs than the first base.

[rbodleyscott]

How about:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can go nearer to any enemy battle group than the first base placed. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

I think this adequately covers voluntarily revealed ambushes without the need to add the extra words "If the ambush was revealed by a moving enemy battle group," to the last sentence. I think common sense can be allowed to prevail unless it can reasonably lead to a different interpretation.

(I note that the above wording can still allow bases to be deployed in a position where they would have been visible to enemy - but this can be rationalised on the basis that the base depths are oversized and/or that the troops bunched tightly together until the ambush was revealed).

[jre]

That does not solve Lawrence's observation that as soon as there is an enemy BG to the left and to the right of the ambush marker the only possible deployments are either a single base column (if you face towards the enemy) or a single base depth line perpendicular to the enemy.

That "any" enemy BG kills the ambush. And with the enemy on a triangle, kills the ambushing BG as well. And it is not as far fetched. You only need a flank march.

Why do you dislike "the closest"? Alternatively "any enemy BG within 6 MU", so that it becomes much harder to get the right geometry without revealing the ambush.

José

[rbodleyscott]

A base that cannot be placed for any reason is lost.

More lenient, but still does not prevent your cheesy BG destruction plan.

Not on its own, but my suggested rule on allowable placement is also more lenient, which makes it almost impossible to engineer the cheese in the first place.

With your suggestion you just need a BG to bypass the ambush on one side, then approach with another BG at 45 degrees to the marker on the other side and it will be very difficult to place a base that is not closer to one of these two BGs than the first base.

Yes I understand now. Thanks Lawrence.

However, there is a slight problem with your version. It prevents you deploying the ambushers in a line facing the ambush discoverers with their front edge on the nearest edge of the ambush marker. If the enemy approach the ambush marker square on, you could only either deploy the ambsh in a column, or deploy it back from the edge of the ambush marker. That being the case, you can only deploy the ambush in line if the whole of it remains out of sight of the enemy - in which case how did they discover it?

This was the reason for the original wording.

So how about:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can be placed closer than the first base to any enemy battle group to which it would be visible. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

[rbodleyscott]

/bump

Anyone want to comment on the last proposed wording?

[spike]

/bump

Anyone want to comment on the last proposed wording?

Is this not an issue of visability rather than the placement of a marker, and subsequent rules which reveal if it represents real or dummy troops?

[lawrenceg]

However, there is a slight problem with your version. It prevents you deploying the ambushers in a line facing the ambush discoverers with their front edge on the nearest edge of the ambush marker. If the enemy approach the ambush marker square on, you could only either deploy the ambsh in a column, or deploy it back from the edge of the ambush marker. That being the case, you can only deploy the ambush in line if the whole of it remains out of sight of the enemy - in which case how did they discover it?

This was the reason for the original wording.

Oops.

Well, I suppose you could rationalise it as spotting the lookouts creeping back out of view.

So how about:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can be placed closer than the first base to any enemy battle group to which it would be visible. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

I suspect that could still be a bit hard on an ambush behind a hill if enemy BG have partially rounded the hill, but not quite enough to get LOS on the ambush marker itself.

Let's go back to first principles and look at what we actually want to achieve, I think it is:

• No base is placed where it would have been seen earlier by another BG.
  
  No base is placed where it would have been seen earlier in the move by the BG (or BL) detecting the ambush.

I think we can allow the first point to be relaxed to some extent, justified by the oversize bases thing and the "I thought that was a bush until it stood up" syndrome.

That would give us:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can be placed where it could have been seen earlier in the move by a moving enemy battle group or battle line that revealed the ambush. Each base must be placed, if possible, where it is not visible to any other enemy, otherwise no closer than the ambush marker to such an enemy base to which it is visible. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

NB this is intended to allow an ambush behind a hill, detected by enemy coming over it, to be placed in what was the dead ground between the ambush marker and the crest (which I think makes sense, rather than having them deploy further out where they would be seen around the side of the hill). I.e. it can go closer to the detecting BG, but only if it would not have been seen earlier.

[rbodleyscott]

That would give us:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. No base can be placed where it could have been seen earlier in the move by a moving enemy battle group or battle line that revealed the ambush. Each base must be placed, if possible, where it is not visible to any other enemy, otherwise no closer than the ambush marker to such an enemy base to which it is visible. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

NB this is intended to allow an ambush behind a hill, detected by enemy coming over it, to be placed in what was the dead ground between the ambush marker and the crest (which I think makes sense, rather than having them deploy further out where they would be seen around the side of the hill). I.e. it can go closer to the detecting BG, but only if it would not have been seen earlier.

This is another hole that is being dug deeper.

Do we really need to write more and more text to protect players from themselves?

If a player wants to place the ambush in the dead ground just behind a crest, he should place the marker just behind the crest.

If the enemy is approaching in a way that might compromise the viability of the ambush, he can reveal it early.

Most ambushes will be in concealing terrain rather than behind hills. Some additional caution will have to be adopted when attempting to ambush from behind hills. (Or use my patented Numidian ambush hills which have H-shaped crests for that perfect ambush. )

[lawrenceg]

OK, how about:

• When an ambush is revealed, place a base entirely on top of the ambush marker and then deploy the battle group around this base. It can face any of the edges of the ambush marker, and can be in any legal formation. A commander who was ambushing with it must be placed in legal contact with it. A base cannot be placed where it could have been seen earlier in the move by a moving enemy battle group or battle line that revealed the ambush, nor closer than the ambush marker to any enemy base to which it is visible. A base that cannot be properly placed for any reason is lost. The enemy can then complete their move, unless it was a second move and they are within 6 MUs of the ambushers.

This is another hole that is being dug deeper.

Is it deep enough conceal an ambush in it?

[rbodleyscott]

This is another hole that is being dug deeper.

Is it deep enough conceal an ambush in it?

That depends on whether the enemy are using CCTV surveillance.

[petedalby]

The proposal that elements be lost still seems a bit harsh to me.

If an Ambush turns out to be illegal why not deploy the BG adjacent to the camp? Or central on the players baseline?

Pete

[lawrenceg]

The proposal that elements be lost still seems a bit harsh to me.

If an Ambush turns out to be illegal why not deploy the BG adjacent to the camp? Or central on the players baseline?

Pete

It was enough of a struggle to persuade them it should ony be some bases lost, not the whole BG!

Seriously, it is not the case of an illegal ambush that is in question. It is what to do with elements that spill over from a legal ambush marker into areas where they can be seen by other enemy BGs when the ambushing BG is deployed (so in real life might have been seen by those other enemy earlier on.

With the new rule, it will still be possible to deploy the visible bases in a lot of cases. It is still a bit harsher than I would have liked. Time will tell if people can live with it.

[shall]

Dealing with an illegal ambush is a different issue - an umpire/orgniser decision.

While the entrapment idea may seem harsh, I think you are all forgetting that in FOG you can decalre the BG and move at any time.

So all it does it make you decide to declare the ambush early and bug out before you get trapped. If you fail to do so and get surrounded then you deserve to lose the BG in my view. This is of course highly realistic - if in aabush bt faced with an impossible task- troops generally bug out to safer territory before they get run over - true throughout history I am sure. Players should larn to do the same.

Si

[pikey]

To simplify the situation, why not say that an ambush must be revealed as soon as an ememy battle group moves within range to just be able to see into the edge of the feature hiding the ambush. In reality, the ambush BG may still not be in line of sight, but one could argue that they have been given away by noise or movement of wildlife. For ambushes deployed behind a ridge line, the enemy BG would need to be within 1" of the hill.
By using this method, you should be able to deploy an ambush wholly within a terrain feature without interference from another ememy BG
If elements of an ambushing BG can't be deployed under these circumstances you have made a huge miscalculation and deserve to loose them.