Slitherine

Quick question that came up in today's game: is it allowed to deploy heavy artillery in ambush in a terrain piece, such as a gully?

Cheers,
-Fredrik

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.

Ghaznavid wrote: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.

Hmm, that's an interesting point, but possibly not one that was intended by the rules designers.

Lets disect this (as I've thought of ambushing Heavy Artillery before).

I agree that the Artillery would not be able to be in ambush in non good going terrain, but I don't see a problem with them being in ambush behind a hill or forest for example.

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.

The question then goes 'how did they get there' and 'are they in a prepared position'. Well, I think that a position can be in ambush and still be prepared. Because by the rationale you have used so far they would not be able to be put in ambush in a forest (for example) as they can't move there, but they WOULD be able to be deployed intitially in a forest inside their deployment area - which doesn't make sense.

Further discussion needed I believe.

Ian

Well, I stated "it could be argued", not that it is so, but it makes sense to me not to allow heavy artillery to ambush at all.
Forest seems a bad example. P. 146 explicitly prevents all deployment in impassable and that of heavy artillery in difficult terrain. So no, you can not heavy deploy artillery in a forest in your deployment area. You could however deploy them in a plantation as unlike the ambush rules, the general deployment rules do not require a troop type to be able to move in the terrain he is in.
Note: I didn't say anything about "moving" in my rationale. (I assume Heavy Artillery would be moved into position in parts. So getting into a position is not the problem, it just takes a long time and is probably not a very stealthy process.) Please avoid mixing my personal rationale (which is of no importance in this context) with the actual wording of the rules.

Thank you for your comments. So to summarize so far:

1) The rules do not explicitly state that heavy artillery would not be allowed to ambush

2) Heavy artillery are allowed to be deployed in rough terrain

3) The rules state that units can only ambush in terrain which they could move to, from which we could infer either that:

3.1) The intention of the rule is that only units that can actually move after deployment are allowed to ambush, in which case HART would not be allowed to ambush regardless of the terrain, or:

3.2) The intention of the rule is that ambushing units can only ambush in terrain in which they could be deployed, in which case it would be permissible to deploy artillery in ambush in rough terrain or in open behind terrain blocking LOS.

My gut feeling tells me that 3.2 is the right option, especially since there exists an historical precedent for ambushing artillery, and that the intention of the rule is to prevent a cunning player from deploying for example archers on top of an Impassable feature.

I do not believe it would be more difficult to hide a couple of bolt shooters from enemy scouts then it would be to hide a couple of thousand, possibly armoured and mounted, soldiers, especially since the "prepared position" mentioned for HART in the rules does not mean "field fortifications".

found it:

rbodleyscott wrote:

WhiteKnight wrote:Sorry if I have missed the point on this thread but it started about Heavy Artillery in ambush, is it allowed? Surely the answer is no? As p 142 explains, BGs can only be placed in ambush in terrain they can move in....Heavy Artillery cannot move in any terrain, not even open, so can never be placed in ambush, not even in open terrain behind a hill etc in a position invisible from the enemy deployment area.

That's not to say you cannot deploy your Heavy Artillery in uneven or rough terrain, you clearly can as p146 says, but even deployed in such in an "invisible" position, it still can't ambush.

Martin

Correct

Here: viewtopic.php?t=6842&highlight=artillery

Might I suggest in that case that this be added to the FAQ in that case since nowhere in the rules does it state that HART can't be deployed in ambush.

With that said, I still think it's a strange decision since there actually exists a clear precedent of this tactic being used in battle, and since there are a lot of other unit types that I would consider much less suitable for ambush then an artillery battery. Do we have any recorded evidence of for example Elephants being used in ambush?

Might I suggest in that case that this be added to the FAQ in that case since nowhere in the rules does it state that HART can't be deployed in ambush.

It's a fair point.

But the rules are very clear that a BG that can't move, can't ambush?

Pete

DaiSho wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote: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.

Hmm, that's an interesting point, but possibly not one that was intended by the rules designers.

"Possibly not", but in fact it was.

Might I suggest in that case that this be added to the FAQ in that case since nowhere in the rules does it state that HART can't be deployed in ambush.

Yes it does, see Karsten's quote above. We didn't put the extra words in because they aren't necessary. Karsten has correctly divined the rationale.

We are trying to keep the size of the FAQ manageable. We won't be adding FAQs for situations where the rules are unambiguous but some players refuse to believe that they mean what they say.

rbodleyscott wrote: Yes it does, see Karsten's quote above. We didn't put the extra words in because they aren't necessary. Karsten has correctly divined the rationale.

We are trying to keep the size of the FAQ manageable. We won't be adding FAQs for situations where the rules are unambiguous but some players refuse to believe that they mean what they say.

While I agree with the less is more FAQ. I think a bleeding obvious section could be helpful. You have in this case a situation which is harder to discover. Keeping it hard and saying the rules are clear, makes you sound like Phil.

Now I don't think this necessarily needs to be a FAQ. But common mechanisms that aren't clear enough like the overlaps pursuing you did put in the FAQ do.

hazelbark wrote:While I agree with the less is more FAQ. I think a bleeding obvious section could be helpful. You have in this case a situation which is harder to discover. Keeping it hard and saying the rules are clear, makes you sound like Phil.

I am Phil.

(Removes latex mask)

Muahahahahahaha!!!

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.

It was light artillery ( scorpion and light catapult) not the heavy version
And the rule are clear : no move = no ambush!

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

rbodleyscott wrote:

hazelbark wrote:While I agree with the less is more FAQ. I think a bleeding obvious section could be helpful. You have in this case a situation which is harder to discover. Keeping it hard and saying the rules are clear, makes you sound like Phil.

I am Phil.

(Removes latex mask)

Muahahahahahaha!!!

Sorry your written prose is still decipher-able 42% of the time. That makes you 3 times more comprehendable that PB.

I think Heavy Artillery should not ambush. It cannot move in the game because it was too big and heavy to move once a battle starts. Setting it up ahead of the main deployment area would be impractical compared with more mobile artillery and troops in most circumstances. It was so big it would be noticed in terrain that would hide other troops.

Ambushing with Heavy Artillery my arse

philqw78 wrote:Ambushing with Heavy Artillery my arse

Sorry, I'm from Italy and still I cannot perceive the slight difference between English people. Are you a gentleman from Oxford or Cambridge University?

philqw78 wrote:Ambushing with Heavy Artillery my arse

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

Ian

Only if you would realistically put it there. The rules do that already.

I think Phil must be of the light blue variety, we dark blue varieties do polite with lots of typos instead!!

I think he got his words muddled and meant

"ambushing my arse with heavy artillery"

Si

shall wrote:Only if you would relsitically put it there. The rules do that already.

I think Phil must be of the light blue variety, we dark blue varieties do polite with lots of typos instead!!

I think he got his words muddled and meant

"ambushing my arse with heavy artillery"

Si

I don't want to offend anybody. It was just a silly phrase we use in Italy sometime when someone uses a vulgar word. Just to say, I'm not one who "parla in punta di forchetta" ("speaks in fork point" an Italian expression to indicate a man who speaks in erudite way).