Slitherine

It takes a lot more than that to offend me, and I suspect Phil too.

Thought it amusing rather than offensive.

Worry not Mario.

Have fun

Si

DaiSho wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Ambushing with Heavy Artillery my arse

I don't see the problem with it. Why do you?

Ian

To be honest, neither do I. There are other unit types that would be far less suitable for ambushing that are allowed to - elephants, hordes, battlewagons (persian war towers!!!) so why not artillery?

Perhaps it would be better to stop any of those ambushing as well. Although some mob might have. Byzantine and Slave Revolt?

philqw78 wrote:Perhaps it would be better to stop any of those ambushing as well. Although some mob might have. Byzantine and Slave Revolt?

I find it interesting that you have no problem with slave revolt ambushing (although there is no historical evidence that they ever did) but you have a problem with Arillery ambushing (although there IS historical evidence that they did).

I'm not saying that Slave Revolters didn't ambush, I'm saying that I'm not aware of them ever being documented as having done it.

Ian

I believe effectively Philip was ambushed by Artillery when he went against Phokians in 354 BC. So there is certainly a precident for Artillery being used from ambush.

Was Philip not 'Surprised' by the Arty. Much like a wargamer who had not read the factors and effects would be.

I'm saying that I'm not aware of them ever being documented as having done it.

Have you not seen Spartacus

Personally I can see no issues about Heavy Artillery in ambush.
Yes - the rules state you must be able to move in the terrain to be able to ambush & that's clear. However, Karsten's quote:
"On P. 142 it says 'Battle Groups can only ambush in terrain they could move in.'
Now given that Heavy Artillery can not move at all it could be argued that they can not not ambush at all. Makes sense as well, given that it say on p 132, that heavy artillery is supposed to be in prepared positions (and hence not disordered by terrain). Preparing a position for your artillery is probably something that enemy scouts can hardly miss*. "

Is also a good point in that if you are in a prepared position - i.e. dug in behind earthworks etc, it seems to me perfectly acceptable that if you've not fired previously and you are out of visible identification range, then there's no earthly reason why you shouldn't be hidden in ambush. If you look at what terrain this would actually apply to, you seem to be restricted to Villages & Plantations (as Troops wholly inside are only visible within 2MUs & 4MUs respectively); behind the hill crests on SH or GH - perfectly acceptable IMHO; in a Gully (which is probably a bit odd but again plausible); and if I read it correctly everything other than LF is visible in ambush just about all other terrain anyway (?) so it's irrelevant.

So what's the big deal guys?

NB: the statement on Page 132 actually says: "Heavy Artillery are ASSUMED to be prepared positions ..." so that does imply that some thought has gone into their position & deployment.

Nodoubt somebody will come up with an example of heavy artillery catching some poor general unawares historically ... but putting that to one side.

And anyway how many Heavy Artillery batteries do we see on the table-top and if you go buying them on the off channce the terrain choice & location will fall just right to allow you to ambush then ... good luck to you!

Mark
* tell that to Talbot!
_________________
Karsten

Aetius wrote:And anyway how many Heavy Artillery batteries do we see on the table-top and if you go buying them on the off channce the terrain choice & location will fall just right to allow you to ambush then ... good luck to you!

Except that the rules do not allow Heavy Artillery to ambush. This is the intention of the authors, and the effect of the wording in the rules. It is also the official ruling.

shall wrote:Well I'm with Richard ..

a) you cannot ambush anything that can't move in the terrain
b) H Art cannot move in any terrain

Seems pretty clear to me ... and was intentional too!

Don't think we should FAQ something where its actually clear. The forum is here for situation where people want to ask, but all that has been asked really was was it what we intended...........er yes.

Si

This has been asked at least twice before, and until reading this, I would have interpreted the rule incorrectly. The rule isn't poorly written, but our assumptions about "the real world" can color our interpretations. I'd suggest being more inclusive.

nickj wrote:

shall wrote:Well I'm with Richard ..

a) you cannot ambush anything that can't move in the terrain
b) H Art cannot move in any terrain

Seems pretty clear to me ... and was intentional too!

Don't think we should FAQ something where its actually clear. The forum is here for situation where people want to ask, but all that has been asked really was was it what we intended...........er yes.

Si

This has been asked at least twice before, and until reading this, I would have interpreted the rule incorrectly. The rule isn't poorly written, but our assumptions about "the real world" can color our interpretations. I'd suggest being more inclusive.

I'd agree with this. The 'real world' thought is that Artillery do indeed move. They weren't created on the 6th day and wait for someone to man them, they were moved there prior to the battle. Thus, why couldn't they move to an ambush position prior to battle.

I hear, and accept the rule interpretation, but being inclusive helps.

Ian

Fair enough.

FWIW Field Fortifications also moved into position before the battle.

We can only wirte it as we mean it ... not that we always manage to succeed in this of course

Anyway seems easily clarrified as we both have.

Si

shall wrote:Fair enough.

FWIW Field Fortifications also moved into position before the battle.

We can only wirte it as we mean it ... not that we always manage to succeed in this of course

Anyway seems easily clarrified as we both have.

Si

Oh, Si, I wasn't having a go.

M. Scott Peck says "The biggest obstacle to communication is the assumption that it's already taken place" - in other words when writing the rule it seems clear but some of us are a little more thick than others.

I still maintain the stance that I don't see a problem with artillery ambushing, but that's not what you've intended, so I'll abide by the decision of the rules

Ian

Oh, Si, I wasn't having a go.

Even if you were not a problem ... one of the issues with "e-mail" is that you can often sound pushy when you are simply stating something simply as you see it or doing smething tognue in cheek. Happens to me all the time too. Some people think I am being upset or defensive at times but usually I am far from it - communication alas is in the mind of the receiver....

M. Scott Peck says "The biggest obstacle to communication is the assumption that it's already taken place" - in other words when writing the rule it seems clear but some of us are a little more thick than others.

Indeed and the reason for this wide ranging forum in fact. As gamers we were never able to debate intent or question meaning in this way in the past. Having spent a full week once drafting clarifications for certain obtuse wording, I am only too aware that the written document can only go so far.

So keep the queries coming and we will try to kerep the answers coming.

Si