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
Ambush marker on the edge of terrain
Page 2 sur 3 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Mer Jan 30, 2019 11:17 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
If we go back to the original question

The Ambush marker was slightly inside the edge of the terrain (plantation) - therefore any side step (of 1 UD) must also be within the plantation at the end of the side step.

On the resulting 'discussion' - I am inclined (for what it is worth) to agree with Dave Allen here - there was very long and hugely contentious debate a few years back among Armati players about whether corner-to-corner contact actually counted as the units in question being classified as side-by-side (as in Armati a rout-through move occurred in the direction that the winning attack came from - so a winning charge into a flank meant the routing unit routed away from that charge & potentially through friendly units to its flank*). In the end it was never resolved and a 'fudge' of making it the umpires decision was the only outcome.

*NB: a similar situation might occur in ADLG with Elephant Rout Through - if an elephant routs either left or right and the flanking units (friend or foe) are only in contact with it corner-to-corner - does that count as a flank and so these units get a Cohesion loss?

Having a situation where a unit can be positioned with an edge alongside the terrain thus allowing a player to claim cover from shooting in one move but then claim they can be outside the terrain for movement or fighting the next move is hard to justify.

Also - in the case of these knights hiding in an orchard - if the rear units are deployed outside of the terrain once the ambush is sprung (& it sounds like they might have been), surely that is also incorrect, as they must be deployed within the terrain piece - as surely they'd have been spotted in the open anyway?

The issue of the knights being deployed at the back of the Ambush marker and because their base is 30mm deep and the marker is 40mm (1 UD) deep they are outside the ZoC of the LI is also an interesting bit of gamesmanship ... Rolling Eyes
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 Jan 30, 2019 11:53 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
[edit] this reply is to Rameses, not Mark

What I'm saying is that this "simple geometry" causes problems for the game.

My view is if a unit (or an ambush) is inside the terrain it is surrounded on all sides by the terrain. It's almost the dictionary definition of inside.

I actually think you're using sophistry here. There is no reference in the rules to units on the edge of terrain being a special case - ie both inside and outside at the same time.

If a unit is invisible (ie in ambush) it is because it is screened by the terrain. It doesn't matter how you position the ambush on the table, the pieces we use for terrain are rarely engineered to high enough tolerances to enable us to be certain one way or another from their physical positions. That's why we have conventions such as saying whether or not units are in range of each other when we move them. A similar convention is that an ambush marker is inside the terrain.

For the purposes of the case Julian raised it doesn't matter that you can place a unit next to the ambush and it will appear to be outside the terrain. The fact that the ambush is screened by the terrain means that the adjacent unit must be on top of that screening piece of terrain. That's the simple geometry required by the rules.

If you want it to be otherwise you need a new section of the rules dealing with this bizarre concept of an edge case.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 3:31 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Well it is the first time I have been accused of ‘sophistry’. I have always thought I was rather unsophisticated. LoL Smile

Dave, what I think you are suggesting is that there is / ought to be a single definition that covers all aspects of the units when interacting with the edge of terrain, whether it be visibility, movement, shooting or combat (or the placement of ambushes).  
Since the definition p53 says that units fighting on the edge are deemed to be fighting ‘inside’ terrain, this should therefore apply to all cases; thus even if a unit starts it’s move in the open but touching terrain, it should be deemed to be partially ‘inside’ that terrain and suffer the relevant movement penalty.

Am I correct? If so, i will pass that thought on the the TB for confirmation. 
Otherwise we seem to already have at least two different ‘edge’ cases, and evidently need to clarify shooting and cover and other situations (though on different threads).

Mark, we don’t have a diagram, though I am sure that Snowhitsky did not ‘bend the rules on the deployment of the ambush. From his description, the marker and the subsequent placement of the units of knights were touching the side edge of the terrain. (To me that is ‘entirely inside’ the terrain). This seems to have occurred towards the rear of the terrain, since the column of knights slid sideways (out of the terrain) and then advanced along the edge of the terrain (up to 2UD) to contact an enemy unit that was also touching the edge of the terrain - which would would have been totally possible if the terrain was >4UD in depth. 

As to the positioning of the unit under the ambush marker, there is nothing in the rules that requires you to put the unit on the edge nearest the enemy. LI are the extreme example where the 1st unit could be up to 1.5UD away from the enemy. Irrespective, even if it was placed on the front edge, I would suggest that it would never be ‘inside’ the ZoC of the enemy that discovered it (another ‘edge case’) Wink 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Snowhitsky
Prétorien


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015
Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 9:58 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
My opponent's use of the ambush marker and subsequent deployment of the knights out of ambush respected all the rules. All the knights were deployed in the terrain and the lead knight was deployed with one long edge in contact and parallel to the rear of the ambush marker.

Dave has correctly identified the core issue: with an ambush marker placed parallel and in contact to the edge of a terrain piece with straight edges (plantation), is a unit considered entirely inside the terrain or not?

If the unit is considered entirely inside the terrain because it was in ambush, then a shift out of the terrain will not be enough for it to clear the terrain.

See diagram here: https://imgur.com/a/O4zhN6S
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 11:46 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Thanks for clarifying. 
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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 11:49 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Julian - I assume this was a charge situation, otherwise the Knight unit could have sidestepped out of the plantation and then performed a little wheel to completely clear the terrain. Would be different if it was in a village.

Gavin - That rule on page 57:


Wink
Citation:
If a melee occurs just on the edge of a terrain, both units are considered to be in the terrain



Implications of this are:

1) a unit inside and on the edge of terrain is wholly inside it and can only be engaged in melee by a unit entering the terrain.

2) a unit in and on the edge of open terrain is wholly in open terrain and can only be engaged in melee by a unit moving into open terrain.

Nothing about it implies that a unit in open terrain is in rough terrain or vice versa.

Nor does it imply that there's some sort of magical force field on the edge of terrain that sucks units in or blows them out.

Remember that open ground is also a terrain.

A practical example:

Citation:
A unit of MI is lined up precisely on the edge of a plantation.

2.5 UD away and lined up exactly parallel is a unit of impetuous Knights.

Between the two is a unit of LI.

The Kn charge the LI which evades to safety behind the MI.

The VMD roll for the Kn is 4 so it can move 3 UD.

It does not have the movement to enter the plantation (even if it wanted to, which, being sensible, it doesn't) and so stops on the edge (of the open terrain).

Since a melee can only occur if both units are in the plantation there is clearly no melee here.

If in the next bound the MI charge the Kn.

Since the Kn is on the edge of open terrain the subsequent melee would take place in the open.


In effect neither unit is able to drag the other into terrain it doesn't want to fight in.

If this isn't making sense then we definitely need a ruling. (On the shooting question too)

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


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015
Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 1:25 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Dave. Yes it was a charge.

Actually, my understanding from a previous ruling in the french forum is that when fighting on the edge of the terrain then both units count as inside the (difficult or rough) terrain. This situation happened at Glasgow where cav were lined up outside a brush and a camel charged them from the brush. I ruled that the camel was in the brush and the cav in the open so there was no terrain penalty for either units. Apparently i was wrong.

As you mention in an earlier post, this needs to be clarified unequivocally. Neither the Glasgow and Cork situations were attempts at gamesmanship, they just happened.
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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 5:18 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
If Dave's quotation of Page 57 is correct, then this should be considered the exception to the rule. Otherwise, two units in corner to corner contact could be 'in' each others ZOC (which would be silly).

Jesse
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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 5:22 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
My posting should have referred to front corner to front corner contact.

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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 6:02 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I have to say this situation strokes me as artificial and even ridiculous, albeit it accidental.

Now going to the rules. To be in ambush an element must be entirely on terrain. Entirely includes both edges. Now I assume that you cannot be both within and not within at the same time. Does this ban an edge lined up perfectly with the terrain edge?

In any case to ambuah the whole.element, even the ouside edge is in terrain. After a one element slide the inside takes the same position which was both before and after the slide within rhe terrain.
Therefore the element remains partially within and has the combat disadvange unless a combat line up slides it further.

Nb I wonder if the rules say that ambushes cannot absolutely touch the edge, but must be a micron back to qualify for entirely within.

H0w does that sound for the rules and reasonableness?

.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 6:51 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
In the French forum, Sorranon has explained that we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. After the slide and advance to contact, the charger must conform with the target. 

Using Dave’s logic that to be’entirely inside’ terrain there must be some small part of the terrain on all sides of a marker (or base), if the target is ‘entirely outside’ the terrain, albeit touching the terrain with a side edge, then the act of Conformation must drag the charger out of the terrain into the open (but touching the terrain assuming it is rectilinear etc).

So in effect we need to consider the situation of the target, not the charger. Where the target is in terrain, the melee is in the terrain; where the target is in the open, the combat is in the open. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Snowhitsky
Prétorien


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015
Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
MessagePosté le: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 8:20 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
In the French forum, Sorranon has explained that we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. After the slide and advance to contact, the charger must conform with the target. 

Using Dave’s logic that to be’entirely inside’ terrain there must be some small part of the terrain on all sides of a marker (or base), if the target is ‘entirely outside’ the terrain, albeit touching the terrain with a side edge, then the act of Conformation must drag the charger out of the terrain into the open (but touching the terrain assuming it is rectilinear etc).

So in effect we need to consider the situation of the target, not the charger. Where the target is in terrain, the melee is in the terrain; where the target is in the open, the combat is in the open. 


Soranon's argument is frankly irrelevant to the matter at hand. As Mike and Dave have pointed out, what we want to know is where the ambushing unit is in relation to the terrain before and after the shift.

This has now been answered in the French rule forum: the unit is entirely out of the terrain after the shift.
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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 9:49 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
And are you allowed to ambush with part of your base (the edge touching the terrain) not in the terrain, but out of it, as it must be by this combat logic?
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: Jeu Jan 31, 2019 10:10 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Thanks Julian.

I think the implications of Sorranon's ruling need examining.

What we seem to have now is an edge case where something in ambush is sufficiently inside to be invisible and yet can slide to be entirely outside. But anything it fights is also inside even though it would be in exactly the same position as the ambushing unit would be if it slid to the side. Are you seeing the anomalies that it will cause yet?

Just to check where we stand:

1) Let's go back to our charging Kn unit that ends exactly outside the plantation (ie on the edge).

If it is then charged by a unit of MI does it get dragged into the plantation for the melee?

2) Say it approaches the plantation at an angle such that one corner is on the edge.

Will the MI that charges it still fight it in the plantation? [surely the melee is occurring on the edge of the terrain]

3) Say it ends its charge at the edge of a circular piece of brush (ie a tangent)

Again, it is charged by a unit of MI. Does the melee occur in the brush?

4) A unit of Bowmen is on the edge of a plantation shooting at something outside.

Does it take a -1 for shooting from cover?

Does its target get a +1 for being shot at through cover?

5) Said unit of Bowmen is then shot at by a unit outside the plantation and to its front.

Does it get a +1 for being in cover?

That's about it for now.

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


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015
Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
MessagePosté le: Ven Fév 01, 2019 12:01 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
They will issue clarafications. I’m happy with a simple rule where everyone knows where they stand and “fighting on the edge of terrain counts as being in the terrain†no matter what the configuration does it for me even though it strains logic at times.
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 2 sur 3 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3  Suivante
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