Deploying an Ambush

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:03 am

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?

I have always played it the Ambush marker. We say on page 142 that "ambushes are made by placing and mabush marker" - so its the marker that is the ambush, once the troops go on it is no longer an ambush if you see what I mean.

We don't like any memory or forward thinking effects in the rules and you don't know where the actual bases are until later. In fact in line with the philosophy above they are quite likely moving about in secret in response to enemy movement rather than bolted to the ground.

The rules are pretty restrictive later on where things can go. For example, imagine you hid a marker in a minimum size wood but it was a 12BG of warband that technically wouldn't fit (they might but imagine it anyway). Well if there are no enemy so when they deploy they can still do so "unseen and further away" they get away with it. But if anyone is in sight of where they would need to spill out they could not ever legally deploy. They would then either have to stay cramped in the wood and wait, or if forced to deploy would lose any bases that could not go down (probably killing them off in the process). Thus "deployer beware" is a decent motto.

Not an official answer yet from the 3 of us, but would be fairly surprised if RBS or TS disagreed, so hope that helps thinmgs along.

Happy to prompt a look from them to formalise if needed.

Si

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:29 pm

shall wrote: I have always played it the Ambush marker. We say on page 142 that "ambushes are made by placing an mabush marker" - so its the marker that is the ambush, once the troops go on it is no longer an ambush if you see what I mean.

Hi Simon,

(I got my Wolves from the Sea book btw).

The way I see it is this, not a rules clarrification but using logic and what I consider reasonable.

In the game you have Drilled and Undrilled troops. Drilled deploy quickly and do things like 'Expand two bases and move' because they have been taught to follow commands such as 'left wheel, right wheel' etc, which means that really, only the commander of the individual base needs to know what's going on. The rest just 'follow orders'.

In the situation of an Ambush I think it's a case of 'everyone huddled in behind a big boulder'. They all know what they are going to do. On a given command they are going to all rush out into a pre-determined position. In fact, in many battles they would even paint the reverse side of rocks etc to give ranges and deployment positions etc.

So, along come the enemy, the call of the trumpet goes up and they all rush out making a great racket and fall into their assigned position. It may be that they 'expand 4 bases', but it's all ok because they know exactly where they are going. They don't need to 'pass a test'.

Now, the situation can get a bit hairy (especially for hairy barbarians

). The enemy don't ALWAYS do what you expect them to do. Sometimes they come at an angle that you didn't expect, and so you can't 'deploy where you expected to'. The guys who were going to be 'right out there on the far left side of the BG' go "Hmm, there's an awful lot of them enemy, and I don't think we expected this", so they can't deploy closer to visible enemy.

I see absolutely no problem with deploying visibly. So long as you don't go closer to visible enemy it's not an issue. It's going to be difficult to orchistrate sometimes. I mean, 'visible enemy' can be all the way over the other side of the wargames table. They could be 5 meters away or they could be 2km away, they are still 'visible' and thus you can't deploy closer to them. So, someone who is going to use this 'trick' is going to have a hard time of it unless they deploy firstly their ambush marker accurately (angled right) and early enough to avoid things like light horse from 'cramping their style'.

Ian

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:51 pm

all seems reasonable to me.

Although i dsoubt they necessarily hid 1500 yds away and would adapt to what they see from within their cover

Si

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:56 pm

shall wrote:all seems reasonable to me.

Although i dsoubt they necessarily hid 1500 yds away and would adapt to what they see from within their cover

Si

Yes, sure, but the issue I was trying to explain is 'when things don't go according to plan'. If you have your ambush marker in place right, and you have a plan to 'pop them out' into the open, but your opponent (the bastard) doesn't do what he's supposed to do, then your plan can't be fulfilled. The troops don't go where they are supposed to go because 'everything didn't go according to plan'.

Now, when it DOES go according to plan, or your plan is foolproof, deploying in the open is simple, easy, and within the rules (and I believe the spirit of the rules).

Ian

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:31 pm

Considering the number of times ambushes were sprung from the reverse slope of a hill, I really don't think there can be an argument against deploying ambushing troops in the open.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:37 pm

gozerius wrote:Considering the number of times ambushes were sprung from the reverse slope of a hill, I really don't think there can be an argument against deploying ambushing troops in the open.

Well...

{inflamitory remarks edited and removed}

Apparently not everyone agrees with you Gozerius.

Ian

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:14 pm

The biggest thing seperating wargamers is the preconceptions we bring to the table. Having read the rules, we all are all constrained by our own limits of understanding. What may be perfectly reasonable and legitimate in your or my eyes may seem like a horrible violation of the LAW (or worse, the RAW) to someone else. I am willing to look at any decent argument, and in the interest of enjoyable gaming, set aside my own personal opinion, if there is a legitimate basis to do so. I don't like being told that "this is the way things are done here" if the convention adopted is in conflict with the spirit of the game, namely to have fun wasting an afternoon or an evening playing with toy soldiers.
I recently saw a good cartoon of Moses standing on the mountain with the tablets containing the 10 Commandments.
He's looking up to heaven and saying: "Yes, they are 10 simple rules, but I'm afraid what the lawyers will do to them."

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:35 am

So the bottom line is that if in deploying an ambush you deploy bases where they are visible to enemy BGs but in accordance with all the restrictions written in the rules, this is OK with Simon but if you try it on the coast you get SMAC'd?

Mike

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:44 am

The authors seem to be sooo resistant to FAQ's on matters that can be manipulated so I feel as a referee for an upcoming event it is only fair to let me thoughts on a controversial issue be known in advance. I would hope this is better than having to wait until you try and make a move to have the referee rule against you.

I will gladly defer to the author's as the final voice on this or any other issue. I do not know why thet are so resistant. I promise that I will buy the 2nd edition volume of the rules which the lack of an exhaustive FAQ can possibly be protecting.

The only promise I ever make as a referee is to be impartial, interprete the rules as written and when neccessary AS I SEE THE AUTHOR'S INTENT(AI).

I will not try and create a 'House Rule" to legislate a rule with which I disagree, but when different interps exist, I will pick the one I think is the AI.\
I will then be consistent through out the event.

Gino
SMAC

PS Ian I have enjoyed every interaction that I have had with you and hope this IMHO "silly" issue is not keeping you from Coast Con.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:53 am

kal5056 wrote: PS Ian I have enjoyed every interaction that I have had with you and hope this IMHO "silly" issue is not keeping you from Coast Con.

Sorry if I came across as a bit 'defensive' on this issue, but I guess it's one where I clearly see it one way and you clearly see it another way

.

I guess your comment about 'automatically awarding 5 points to my opponent' made me disagreeable because I wouldn't have been doing it to 'bend the rule' I would have been doing it because I see it as a reasonable and honest use of the game mechanic. It would be like (in my way of thinking) saying 'you've moved your HF 3 MU's straight forward - how stupid to think you can do this. I'm awarding 5 points to your opponent'

.

Anyway - Coast Con isn't in my locale, so I think we're both in the clear in this case.

Ian

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:05 am

I was having a grumpy day and as the dog was unavailabe for kicking I resorted to Hyperbole. I will not be throwing bonus point around. Except perhaps for excessive use (or lack there of) of personal hygene to wage ancient chemical warfare on the opponent. No matter how historically accurate it may in fact be.

Gino
SMAC

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:11 am

kal5056 wrote:I was having a grumpy day and as the dog was unavailabe for kicking I resorted to Hyperbole. I will not be throwing bonus point around. Except perhaps for excessive use (or lack there of) of personal hygene to wage ancient chemical warfare on the opponent. No matter how historically accurate it may in fact be.

Gino
SMAC

I'm glad we're on the same page

- although I will have to report you to the RSPCA for potential dog abuse. It's also a lot easier to explain a POV when you're face to face than when you're doing ASCII drawings.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:22 am

Then lets aggree now to discuss this with sugar and sweetener packets at dinner next time we are at an event together.
Safe Travels
Gino
SMAC