Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Ambushes into the enemy half of the table
Page 1 sur 1
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Mai 06, 2019 9:01 pm    Sujet du message: Ambushes into the enemy half of the table Répondre en citant
Hi guys

Interesting situation at Rollcall on ambush element placement, with the marker up to the centre line and the rest of the ambush group projecting into the enemy half of the table. Views. Is this in keeping with the written word and is it how it should be played?


Pg 70 a defender can place an ambush marker up to the centre line in the flank sectors. The ambush must be deployed in a group, one element on the marker, the rest in a group, and none within 1ud of the enemy. If you are not spotted from in front a group could them have one element on the marker and the rest in a column projecting forward 3 units into the enemy table half.


Pg 72 also specifies deployment area. It gives some strange results if it applies to ambushes rather than just initial deployment,
1. The first sentence sets deployment limits; in the deployment area in your own area half of the table
2. The second sentence sets the deployment area for lights, eg 3ud from centre, no exception for ambushes
3. The third sentence sets the limits for “othersâ€. It includes a parenthesis which allows exceptions for defenders. Since it is only in the sentence about “others†this exception does not appear to apply to lights and specifically refers to defenders only.

NB the first sentence seems not relevant, since it limits you to your deployment area, and we know ambushes have a greater area. If this whole section is relevant to ambushes, rather than just initial deployment, when read literally this mean the defenders “others†(non light) in ambush can go out of their normal deployment area. However lights are perversely significantly more limited and must remain in their normal deployment area, since the second sentence has no such exception parenthesis. Attackers are also morelimited and so it might be argued that non lights attackers cannot ambush within the side table edge 4ud limit.

Mike B
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1464
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Lun Mai 06, 2019 10:20 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
You’ve not said how you think Ambushes should be played ? 

That would be helpful for context. 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Lun Mai 06, 2019 10:40 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I have to say, I always assumed that units in an ambush must be on their own half of the table. But I have not thought about it before.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Longtooth
Signifer


Inscrit le: 14 Oct 2014
Messages: 349
Localisation: Oxford
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 6:22 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I've always considered the deployment rules to cover the ambush marker only. Once the ambush is triggered, the hidden units are subject to a different set of rules.

Jesse
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 3:05 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hi Jesse

That is my understanding too, different rules for ambush. Page 72 clearly does not apply because it refers to the deployment areas, which are obviously overriden by specific rules for ambushes. So I would say that ambushes CAN extend beyond the centre line. You simply respect the ambush rules; in a group, one on the marker, none within 1ud of enemy.

My natural preferance is to play the rules as written until the author makes a change if needed.  When there are unexpected readings they are best published widely so that the game does not become about who is best at finding arcane readings. In this case the results are not excessively perverse.  Mid table ambushes can be countered and left highly exposed by a rapid attack in force.  Also they are generally scouted from infront, in which case it is not possible to deploy forward, .
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 6:06 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Mike I agree with your reasoning.

It had never occurred to me. So a forest that crosses the table edge, yes an ambush could start on own side and extend across.

The wrinkle with an opponent being able to stop it runs into an ambush can self reveal. But again this is very much on the fringes of the game.

So yep. Go for it.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
fdunadan
Tribun


Inscrit le: 12 Juin 2009
Messages: 978
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 6:07 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
you must be defender to place your ambush at the limit of the middle table.
So your opponent play first, his forward units are at 5 UD of your marqueur (or even 3 UD if LI or LH)
His first move will surely place an unit in the 1 UD of the ambush marqueur and you must deploy, but only in the rear or flanks of the marqueur.

So not a very interesting move in my opinion.
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 7:12 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Agreed. It is unusual and easy to prevent, but this bit of the rules was only found because it happened in a roll call game. I think we are all past the age where we study the rules for anomalies, but they still come up from time to time, even after many many games.

In the competition the umpire ruled against my ambush deploying forward. It was only after the weekend that I took the time to read the rules further and came to the conclusion that it should have been allowed within the letter of the rules. As to the spirit and intention of the rules, that is a different question which only Herve can confirm.


Dernière édition par Mike Bennett le Mar Mai 07, 2019 8:17 pm; édité 2 fois
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 07, 2019 8:13 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hi Dan

I usually find that it is best with enemy ambushes near the half way line not to give them the option to self reveal
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 08, 2019 7:38 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Nope, you cannot place ambushing troops outside the permitted ambush areas shown in the diagram on page 70.

The reasoning behind this is twofold.

1) The rules should be read as prescriptive not proscriptive. That is they say what is permitted and do not detail every possible thing you can't do. Nowhere is there even the suggestion that you can deploy ambushing troops outside the marked areas. In other words "the rules don't say I can't" isn't an acceptable argument.

2) If you can extend an ambush outside the marked areas then you should be able to place ambushing troops in the central sector at 10 UD from the base edge (with suitable terrain of course). Which is a clear contradiction of the intent of the rule.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 08, 2019 6:37 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
First I think Dave makes valid points for discussion. I don't think necessarily he is right on the rules, but....

It reminded me, I "thought" at one point there was an FAQ that answered the old, can an ambush in a flank sector extend when revealed to the center sector. But I can't fight that in the FAQ. Although I didn't flip through older versions.

However:
Page 76 the rules amendments read:

Citation:
The attacker can only deploy ambushes in his heavy troops deployment area (up to 5 UD from the center of the table) and up to the side edges. The defender may lay ambushes up to the middle of the table in the side sectors and in the deployment area of heavy troops in the central area (ie, up to 5 UD from the centre of the table).


This refers to troops not ambush markers.

This would seem to me to support the idea they cannot cross the center line.

Reactions?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Zoltan
Centurion


Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 08, 2019 11:15 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
P.76 official amendment (my emphasis)
"Terrain and deployment"
"The attacker can only deploy ambushes..."
"The defender may lay ambushes up to the middle of the table in the side sectors..."

Do the terms deploy and lay refer to the actual deployment on table of ambush units or do they only refer to the deployment of the ambush marker during game set-up?

But surely we're sweating the small stuff here? In the first move of the game it is likely that an offender approaching an ambush marker (placed hard up against the centre line in a forward placed village) will do so from within a 180 degree arc of the ambush marker's front edge. I think the geometry probably precludes the defender deploying his ambush troops forward of his marker (i.e. a column extending across the centre line and into the offender's half of the table) as this would come within 1 UD (even by a gnat's todger) of the offender's unit (not permitted by P.70 third right column bullet point)
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1464
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mai 09, 2019 12:03 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I guess we have two choices

1. there’s a deliberate difference that has been introduced by the DT between “lay†and “deploy†that’s been included in a translated-from-French FAQ with the express intent of articulating that there are very subtly different rules for attackers and defenders ambushes through the use of two near-semantically-identical but different English words, and this creates a potential on table situation that in normal gameplay will pretty much never ever happen anyway even were me of the olayersto attempt to engineer it.

2. Ambushing troops need to be put in the bits of the table where the rules say they can be put.

Im going “2†fwiw ... 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Mike Bennett
Centurion


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mai 09, 2019 6:25 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I had missed page 76 completely. It could be argued that as it is in big battles section it only applies to them, but that is not really sensible. Also It says ambushes, and we can argue about markers or units. I would go with units.

So it seems to me that page 76 is the key and ambush markets and the troops have the same deployment area limitations, including the central section. This also had the benefit of being consistent. Thanks Dave
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1525
MessagePosté le: Jeu Mai 09, 2019 4:12 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Consistent and common sense and game friendly.

"what madness have we unleashed!"
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Page 1 sur 1
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum