Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can a single "parent" unit deployed as normal provide for multiple ambushing units? At first I didnt think this was the case, but after reading through the book a few times it seems that it might be (or maybe i just wish it was):

"You may keep any unit with the Beastmen Ambush special rule off table 'in Ambush' at the beginning of the game, provided that you have a unit of the same type and of the same size (or larger) that you deploy as normal."

Re-reading this struck me as strange, because it never says that the deployed unit is exclusive to a single ambushing unit. At this point i feel that a 1 to 1 relationship has not be established, as long as you have 'a unit' (singular) of the same size or larger deployed, you may hold 'any unit' (plural) in Ambush.

The next few sentences give an example of a unit of 40 ambushing Gors requiring a unit of at least 40 Gors deployed as normal, and to tell your opponent of any ambushing units before the game. Finally we come to the ammo for the other side:

"It doesn't matter what the two units are armed or upgraded with, just so long as the unit in Ambush doesn't outnumber it's opposite number on the board."

The only wording in the rules that makes me feel queasy about multiple ambushing units from a single parent unit is 'it's opposite number'. In defense of the multiple ambushing units, this word usage could simply be a shorthand way to reference two separate units (although still without establishing a 1 to 1 relationship). However, it also could be interpreted as (a typically lazy and ambiguous) GW intent of establishing a 1 to 1 relationship, as opposite commonly invokes the thought of polar opposites: two separate entities linked intrinsically, of which no other entity could be considered an opposite (and therefor similarly linked) to either. Logically however there are many instances where this thought process fails, and im not sure if it can be made as a blanket ideology. The first that comes to mind is the opposite of an absolute value.
If Y= -|X| (the opposite of the absolute value of X), then Y will always be negative and of the magnitude X. A singular result 'Y' could be obtained from both X and -X.
Meaning that my unit of 10 Gors (X) could be linked to my deployed unit of 20 Gors (Y), and my other unit of 15 Gors (-X) could also be linked to the same unit of 20 Gors (Y) as all rules restrictions have been met.

Am i a faygot that you wouldnt play for considering this? Is it a rules oversight that will be FAQ'ed? Would playing this way even be an unfair advantage, considering the lukewarm ambushing table and the mediocrity of ambushing units? Wouldnt it have been easier if the intent was 1 to 1 to have a 'ambushing detachment' a la empire, or an 'ambushing weapons team' a la skaven? Thoughts and opinions welcome, but keep it civil...

*edit for spelling ><

I see where you are coming from.

Say gors A, B, C

A is on the table normally

B: is there "a unit of the same type and of the same size (or larger) that you deploy as normal." ?
Yes, so I put them in ambush

C: is there "a unit of the same type and of the same size (or larger) that you deploy as normal." ?
Yuppers, A is still there, so I put them in ambush...

from what you wrote I'd saw RAW legal, but I don't have the rules. I'm not even sure about the RaI of this.

Yeah, we found the same thing playing yesterday. We decided it was a 1 for 1 sort of thing, but it wasn't really worded very well. RAW leaves room for argument either way, so we went with what seemed intended based on White Dwarf and designer interviews (weak, I know)- that is a 1 for 1 ambushing process.

RZ

I agree with zeke. I'd suspect it will be FAQ'd in a month or two.

It sounds like RAI is for a 1 to 1 thing... RAW it's hard to tell, since the ammo for the "other side" that you list definitely says "the two units" and "opposite number".

It would've been nice to just have to have one parent unit... but if people start doing this across the board, they probably will release a clarification in a FAQ making it clearer (and restricting it to 1 to 1).

I wouldn't mind so much if someone did interpert it in the vague 'multiple ambushers per on-board unit' way. The more points they have off-board, the greater the chance I can smash what's on the table and then deal with the ambushers as they arrive.

But then, I tend to play either hoard forces (who can easily spare rear- and flank-guard units) or highly mobile forces (which can turn to deal with ambushers at need).

Sounds like it should work as raw.

Course any smart player would set up on the 12 inch line and just march for a turn to completly screw you over.

Golga wrote:Sounds like it should work as raw.

Course any smart player would set up on the 12 inch line and just march for a turn to completly screw you over.

Actually that is typically exactly what the beastmen player wants. Remember beasts are an assault army, they don't magic very well, they have almost zero shooting, what they are meant to do is beat face in hth. Also most people aren't going to want to move their warmachines on turn 1.

And anyone throwing themselves into the arms of minotaurs and their associated heroes better be hitting hard enough to drop them quick.

RZ

The moment I read this, I figured it was 1 unit on the table, as many as you want of equal size or less in ambush.

Otherwise, they could just copy/paste the old ambush rules, because that's almost what they were [1/2 the units with the ambush rule can be off-table in ambush].

So I foresee a 20-man gor unit with a million smaller ambushing units off-table, with max minotaur units coming up the front that you can't afford to ignore.

Sounds great to me!

Although as mentioned above, I don't think this was how it was supposed to work, if I showed up for a game and someone wanted to play this way, I wouldn't throw a fit. There's a reasonable argument for both interpretations, and I don't think it's the most overpowering thing ever...

RZ

From todays GW site

Beastmen: Minotaur Tactics wrote:For every unit of Ungors or Gors you deploy, you can have a herd of the same unit type and size off the table as ambushers

Doesn't make it the rules, however.

Helps with intent though, in fact, I'd say it explicitly shows the intent. Anyway, I don't care, with this, I would play it this way and not accept my opponent playing it the other way.

It only shows the intent of the *author* if the *author* wrote the article - quite often it is someone not even in the studio that writes the tactica...

But I'm sure he's played a game or two, maybe even seen or been part of the play testing. What it doesn't do is support the other way to play at all. Since there's supposed to be balance in cost and abilities, at this point I wouldn't play someone who did 1 gor unit on, 3 gors in ambush.

Note: There was no change to the rules, so this has nothing to do with RAW (which allows it in only the way GW can write rules), just saying how I'd play it.

Trouble is that while you may not "allow" it, that just means you D6 it - the *rules* are ambiguous and so the only way to resolve is to D6 every time.

I agree with Nosf. You can justify "intent" but most rules issues are re-solved by how exactly the rules are written. This will be another one chalked up to future GW FAQ/ Tournament Organizer decision.

In friendly 1 off games, you can request a dice off. Plus GW personel can put their thoughts on who things are "supposed" to be. However, if its not a official FAQ, they basically are like use... gamers trying to figure it out.

I think there's enough there ("the two units", "its opposite number") to say with a fair degree of certainty that deploying one units allows for you at Ambush one unit, on a 1-for-1 basis.

Play the game, not the rules.

My immediate impression when I read it was its 1 for 1.

Even if it was 1 for 1+ , having so many small ambush units would probably be more of a detriment then any help. Fast movers or focused missile/magic could eat them piecemeal, or the opponet could concentrate on what is actually on the table before anything shows up, ambush is not reliable in my games with it. In my games, I'm finding that a sprinkle of ambushing units is better then a flood. So when I ambush its more 3 for 1 for me, regardless of which way the rule eventually falls.

Which is why when 8th ed comes around and gives us all objectives, suddenly lots of small units that *by themselves* can win the game by simply contesting/claiming an objective - then you will see people clamouring for the 1-many interpretation.

Agree with Nosferatu on the 8th edition portion - I wondered why Ungor raiders would be any good - basically they'll be the equivalent to having combat squads for Space Marines. Cheap, objective taking and numerous guys to pull out the win.
In reality, think about how many armies have core choices that are skirmishing, to take advantage of the 360 movement. The only monkey wrench may end up being if they make it a core choice with a banner (as I've seen rumors about) to claim objectives, although it may end up being good just to contest with them.

The more I read and think about the Beastmen codex, it starts making more sense that it will be a decent book (as much as everyone complains about it sucking).

Exactly.

They made it for 8th, not 7th.

Its 1 for 1, don't kid yourselves.