Slitherine

david53 wrote:
Thats what I ment can you deploy up to eleven bases in the open.

If that particular piece of open ground is not visible from the enemy deployment area, and they are the same distance as the first base placed (or further) from ALL enemy BG that can see them, then yes, you can.

If that particular piece of open ground is visible from the enemy deployment area, then maybe you can and maybe you can't, depending on how page 142 is interpreted.

petedalby wrote:
I'll leave it for an author to give a definitive answer but taken to an extreme, if you're right - you could have a 12 base BG is ambush and just have 1 base in the terrain. Hardly plausible?

Pete

Plausible as the in-game mechanism for Caesar's observation when ambushed from woods by the Nervii at the Sambre:

Caesar wrote:... the Nervii ran down to the river with such incredible speed that they seemed to be in the woods, the river, and close upon us almost at the same time.

Also plausible as representing minor folds in the ground , early morning mist, camouflage etc. not explicitly represented in the FOG system.

lawrenceg wrote:
If that particular piece of open ground is visible from the enemy deployment area, then maybe you can and maybe you can't, depending on how page 142 is interpreted.

If people think this is a loop hole should'nt it be covered otherwise it might cause difficulties if its used in your next game. A rule that can be interpreted differently might cause problems to a umpire in any future comps just a thought. If its there people will use it.

Personally I don't think there is a loophole - just surprised that we could have such different interpetrations.

I agree it doesn't need a FAQ - but if someone pulled this on me I would reluctantly ask for the umpire. In all the games I've played so far it hasn't been an issue. Ambushes aren't used that often.

Pete

If someone tries to pull this (expletive deleted) at Coast Con next month I will automatically award thier opponent 5 bonus point.

This is just a silly argument and Gorganzola of the highest magnitude.

If people keep searching for every dangling participle in every line of the rules to exploit they are going to turn this into DBx.

Just learn to play the game and stop trying to show how clever you are.

GINO
SMAC

lawrenceg wrote: B could not deploy as

XXXX YYYY

BBBB

because the right hand B is visible to Y and closer than the first base.

However B could deploy in a way so that they were angled slightly back from left to right (so long as the first base could fit on the ambush marker).

Ian

andy63 wrote:I thought all the cheesiness style of play was left behind with DBM.

I don't see it as cheese. As (I think it was Mike) said, you can argue it as 'historical' by troops being bunched up and quickly deploying at a given signal. The difference between this and DBM is that you didn't have to put ANY ambush markers down in DBM so it was very arbitrary where an enemy ambush was.

Ian

babyshark wrote:I think it is clear from a reading of the rules that lawrenceg has the correct analysis. I see no need for a clarification, FAQ, et cetera.

Marc

Actually, I respectfully disagree. The way this thread seems to be going (and maybe I'm mis-reading things - ASCII diagrams are always going to be a little flawed) it's going to mean that effectively you can't ambush in the open. There is no reason (under the rules) that you can ambush in the open (behind a hill for example) and thus when it is sprung (or you spring it yourself) place your troops into a position (in the open) that complies with the rules. There seems to me little difference in this example and springing an ambush from a vinyard (for example) into the open. As I said, you have to comply with the rules and it can get a bit sticky if you don't do it right (if the enemy out-guess you) but that's a part of the game. Deliberately springing an ambush in such a way that the enemy CAN'T comply with the rules would quickly 'auto break' the ambushers. Not easy to organise, but it can be done. Angles of the Ambush marker are essential when doing this sort of thing however.

Ian

david53 wrote:

petedalby wrote:But surely the point that you're missing is that the first base you place on the ambush market isn't visible to the enemy - unless they've triggered it of course? The first base must be in terrain which makes it not visible to enemy. So trying to put other bases in the open makes them nearer in visibility terms.

I'll leave it for an author to give a definitive answer but taken to an extreme, if you're right - you could have a 12 base BG is ambush and just have 1 base in the terrain. Hardly plausible?

Pete

So if I have got this right if i place an ambush marker touching the edge of the terrian piece I could when enemy reach it place one element on it and up to eleven in a line in the open as long as they stay the same distance from the enemy BG, is this correct.

Yes, you can do this. Under the rules, and I don't see it as cheese. One thing tho, is that you'd better make sure you aren't visible to anything else on the table and no closer to ANYTHING. So, in this example:



army army army army army

B

B = Ambushers.

If the army moved like this.

army

B army army army army

then the only way the ambush would be able to deploy would be to the left, and if there isn't any space they would find themselves in a whole world of pain - possibly to the point of auto-breaking.

Ian

kal5056 wrote:If someone tries to pull this (expletive deleted) at Coast Con next month I will automatically award thier opponent 5 bonus point.

This is just a silly argument and Gorganzola of the highest magnitude.

If people keep searching for every dangling participle in every line of the rules to exploit they are going to turn this into DBx.

Just learn to play the game and stop trying to show how clever you are.

GINO
SMAC

My thoughts exactly.

Andy.

petedalby wrote:Personally I don't think there is a loophole - just surprised that we could have such different interpetrations.

I agree it doesn't need a FAQ - but if someone pulled this on me I would reluctantly ask for the umpire. In all the games I've played so far it hasn't been an issue. Ambushes aren't used that often.

Pete

I feel that this isn't going to go away. If as you see it can't be done, but another person reading the rules and on this thread see's it as something that can be done. Now what happens if the umpire you go to is a person that reads the rules and says they can do it. Is'nt this a case were it should be nailed down either way by the writer, before it does rise up in a comp and causes more heated discussion's. BTW I have mostly LH armies so no ambushs but lots of flank marchs.

The rules as written are clear enough. I buy lawrenceg's comment about the Sambre - would ambushers simply appear in the woods, or rush out into position where they could fight? And design wise, I think BGs sometimes have to deploy in open terrain where they might be visible to enemy due to the rigidity of base sizes and formations based on the location of the ambush marker. The constraints about not being nearer than the first base deployed do a good job of enabling the other side to avoid positional disadvantages from coming in sight of the ambush.

A change to provide that bases deployed visible must not be farther away than a base width or two, or perhaps movement distance, from the terrain or original area of concealment would provide a limit, but add complication.

DaiSho wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: B could not deploy as

XXXX YYYY

BBBB

because the right hand B is visible to Y and closer than the first base.

However B could deploy in a way so that they were angled slightly back from left to right (so long as the first base could fit on the ambush marker).

Ian

No. The first base must face one side of the ambush marker, so it can't be angled back.

lawrenceg wrote:No. The first base must face one side of the ambush marker, so it can't be angled back.

Of course it can be. So long as the ambush marker is angled in the first place the line would be able to be angled back. I regularly put ambush markers at an angle to the battle edge.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:No. The first base must face one side of the ambush marker, so it can't be angled back.

Of course it can be. So long as the ambush marker is angled in the first place the line would be able to be angled back. I regularly put ambush markers at an angle to the battle edge.

Ian

Sorry, I was following on from DaveR's example where the enemy line was parallel to one side of the ambush marker (and in my ASCII art everything was parallel). Of course you can place the marker at any orientation and the enemy can approach it from any direction, so you will automatically be angled back unless the enemy approaches exactly parallel.

Note that as the rules are written it is perfectly possible to overlap two (or in theory all three) ambush markers. You deploy one BG in ambush in one turn, and deploy the second/third BG in ambush in a later turn(s). This however is a risky strategy as if the ambush BG cannot be legally deployed you may well lose the BG.

When this was first pulled on me I thought it a bit cheesey, but on reflection I felt it was perfectly valid.

I didn't explain my last comment properly.

I realise you can't interpenetrate an Ambush marker (FAQ 5.1). What I meant was that the deployment of the ambushes can overlap (as long as they are in different turns)..

DaiSho wrote:

andy63 wrote:I thought all the cheesiness style of play was left behind with DBM.

I don't see it as cheese. As (I think it was Mike) said, you can argue it as 'historical' by troops being bunched up and quickly deploying at a given signal. The difference between this and DBM is that you didn't have to put ANY ambush markers down in DBM so it was very arbitrary where an enemy ambush was.

Ian

I thought it odd and can see how some are so up in arms but think its fine as written and as being played in my experience. The ambush marker has to be in ambush. The BG when it is placed on table doesnt. It only very rarely comes up as a viable option to pop into opne ground in an advantageous position.

I see no need for an FAQ either

if there is nobody in sight of them at all fir some bizzarre reason go for it. Hardly unreasonable but also likely to be rarer than ice cubes in than ice cubes in the desert.

The whole point of the fog ambush concept is that ambushing troops do not just sit there awaiting discovery in fixed formation as if bolted together and nsailed to the ground (a la dbx), but adapt their local deployment to what the enemy do.

So you cvan indeed cramp an ambush with 2 oir 3 bgs and rightly so. IME this forces the ambush to bug out early.
or...
If instead you leave a wide open unobserved space close to them then why would they not use it?

for analysis of correct interp of the words see lawrences postings which are spot on as far as I can see from a first pass.

very different intent and mindset to dbx.

Si

shall wrote:if there is nobody in sight of them at all fir some bizzarre reason go for it. Hardly unreasonable but also likely to be rarer than ice cubes in than ice cubes in the desert.

The whole point of the fog ambush concept is that ambushing troops do not just sit there awaiting discovery in fixed formation as if bolted together and nsailed to the ground (a la dbx), but adapt their local deployment to what the enemy do.

So you cvan indeed cramp an ambush with 2 oir 3 bgs and rightly so. IME this forces the ambush to bug out early.
or...
If instead you leave a wide open unobserved space close to them then why would they not use it?

for analysis of correct interp of the words see lawrences postings which are spot on as far as I can see from a first pass.

very different intent and mindset to dbx.

Si

The original question was about the wording on p 142 "Ambushes must not be visible from the enemy deployment area" and whether that refers to just the ambush marker itself, or the positions of the individual bases when they actually get placed on the table. Any chance of an author-agreed answer on this?