Tallarn Ambush Stratagem: Clarification needed?

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.

**Marius Xerxes**

Interested to see how this works with vehicle units. In this example ill use Hellhounds.

First, the rules in use.

Ambush: "Use this stratagem during deployment. Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."

Vehicle Squadron: "The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes."

My question/clarification is basically order of operations.

During deployment when choosing units to put in ambush, is a vehicle squadron is still a single unit of x vehicle models? If it is treated as separated, then how to you place them within 6" of each other if they are not even on the board? In terms that makes sense for the game, that is. I don't think the point would be to measure off table to be sure models are within 6" in your case, display or side board.

**JohnnyHell**

So to fit both rules:

- Choose the multi-vehicle unit to set up in ambush
- When bringing them onto the table, set all models up within 6" of another in the unit and complying with whatever the (not quoted) ambush deployment rule is (so within 6" of a table edge, 9" from enemy units, whatever the stipulation is)
- From that point on, each vehicle is treated as a separate unit

**Marius Xerxes**

JohnnyHell wrote:
So to fit both rules:

- Choose the multi-vehicle unit to set up in ambush
- When bringing them onto the table, set all models up within 6" of another in the unit and complying with whatever the (not quoted) ambush deployment rule is (so within 6" of a table edge, 9" from enemy units, whatever the stipulation is)
- From that point on, each vehicle is treated as a separate unit

That was my interpretation as well.

With that interpretation though, you could potentially Ambush a large quantity of the various units that can be purchased in Squadrons. Sentinels, Hellhounds, Leman Russ Tanks etc. Ignoring point costs inherent to doing so, it seemed like one of those too good to be true interpretations.

Not to mention that for reserves purposes, those 3 "units" turn into 9 only after they hit the board. That is really crazy when it comes to only being able to hold half your units off the table and for determining number of drops for who goes first.

**JohnnyHell**

Marius Xerxes wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
So to fit both rules:

- Choose the multi-vehicle unit to set up in ambush
- When bringing them onto the table, set all models up within 6" of another in the unit and complying with whatever the (not quoted) ambush deployment rule is (so within 6" of a table edge, 9" from enemy units, whatever the stipulation is)
- From that point on, each vehicle is treated as a separate unit

That was my interpretation as well.

With that interpretation though, you could potentially Ambush a large quantity of the various units that can be purchased in Squadrons. Sentinels, Hellhounds, Leman Russ Tanks etc. Ignoring point costs inherent to doing so, it seemed like one of those too good to be true interpretations.

Not to mention that for reserves purposes, those 3 "units" turn into 9 only after they hit the board. That is really crazy when it comes to only being able to hold half your units off the table and for determining number of drops for who goes first.

Is what it is... squadrons have their drawbacks at times but this is a huge benefit!

**argonak**

Marius Xerxes wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
So to fit both rules:

- Choose the multi-vehicle unit to set up in ambush
- When bringing them onto the table, set all models up within 6" of another in the unit and complying with whatever the (not quoted) ambush deployment rule is (so within 6" of a table edge, 9" from enemy units, whatever the stipulation is)
- From that point on, each vehicle is treated as a separate unit

That was my interpretation as well.

With that interpretation though, you could potentially Ambush a large quantity of the various units that can be purchased in Squadrons. Sentinels, Hellhounds, Leman Russ Tanks etc. Ignoring point costs inherent to doing so, it seemed like one of those too good to be true interpretations.

Not to mention that for reserves purposes, those 3 "units" turn into 9 only after they hit the board. That is really crazy when it comes to only being able to hold half your units off the table and for determining number of drops for who goes first.

One clarification, Sentinel squadrons don't break up.

**BaconCatBug**

Funny observation that when it doesn't benefit, people come out the woodwork screaming "Not as intended" but when it can flank half an army of Leman Russes in ambush everyone is silent.

But yes, it looks like Creed moved to Tallarn when Cadia blew up and is now outflanking Baneblades there.

**JohnnyHell**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Funny observation that when it doesn't benefit, people come out the woodwork screaming "Not as intended" but when it can flank half an army of Leman Russes in ambush everyone is silent.

But yes, it looks like Creed moved to Tallarn when Cadia blew up and is now outflanking Baneblades there.

Did you have a point or are you trolling?

**cult_of_the_void_dragon**

lemans and hell hounds.... That stratagem works on super heavies as well. I'm trying to decide if I draw up a list of a shadowsword and two stormlords in a tallarn detachment and watch my opponent gak himself.

**Nemesis234**

I thought that maybe a baneblade is over 7" wide so couldn't be set up "wholly within" but it is a tiny bit under so can be.

**BaconCatBug**

Nemesis234 wrote:
I thought that maybe a baneblade is over 7" wide so couldn't be set up "wholly within" but it is a tiny bit under so can be.
Not to be a debbie downer, but "wholly within" doesn't mean the whole model has to be entirely within 7". "Wholly within" is a specific term meaning that all models within a unit have to be "within" a certain distance. A Baneblade can deploy with only a micrometer of the hull short of 7" from the table edge and still be legally deployed, regardless of how far the rest of the hull is from the table edge.

Example: The Kustom Force Field (Index Xenos 2, Big Mek, Orks) says it benefits a unit "wholly within" 9" of it (via errata to add the "wholly" to avoid the situation below). That means every model has to be 9" from the Mek, which by the rules for measuring means measuring base to base, so even if one edge of the base is more than 9", if one edge is within 9", the whole model is within 9".

Compare that to Azrael's Lion Helm (Index Imperium 1, Azrael, Dark Angels), which benefits a unit "within 6" of Azrael". This means a unit that is daisy chained along so the furthest model is 30" from Azrael, so long as even a single member is within 6", the whole unit is "within 6" of Azrael" and benifits.

Have no fear. Someone has said I am wrong, therefore I am!

**JinxDragon**

BaconCatBug,
It really depends what Rule the 'wholly within' is attached to, because that isn't at all confusing!
If it is attached to a Model specific Rule, the all parts of the Model must be within X
if it is attached to a Unit specific Rule, then all Models only need to have a toe within X

**BaconCatBug**

JinxDragon wrote:
If it is attached to a Model specific Rule, the all parts of the Model must be within X

There is no basis to this, because even a single model is a unit and the rules for measuring distance are crystal clear.

If you can show me an example, or some rules basis for this, please do.

**JohnnyHell**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Nemesis234 wrote:
I thought that maybe a baneblade is over 7" wide so couldn't be set up "wholly within" but it is a tiny bit under so can be.
Not to be a debbie downer, but "wholly within" doesn't mean the whole model has to be entirely within 7". "Wholly within" is a specific term meaning that all models within a unit have to be "within" a certain distance. A Baneblade can deploy with only a micrometer of the hull short of 7" from the table edge and still be legally deployed, regardless of how far the rest of the hull is from the table edge.

Example: The Kustom Force Field (Index Xenos 2, Big Mek, Orks) says it benefits a unit "wholly within" 9" of it (via errata to add the "wholly" to avoid the situation below). That means every model has to be 9" from the Mek, which by the rules for measuring means measuring base to base, so even if one edge of the base is more than 9", if one edge is within 9", the whole model is within 9".

Compare that to Azrael's Lion Helm (Index Imperium 1, Azrael, Dark Angels), which benefits a unit "within 6" of Azrael". This means a unit that is daisy chained along so the furthest model is 30" from Azrael, so long as even a single member is within 6", the whole unit is "within 6" of Azrael" and benifits.

I believe your interpretation is incorrect. From the Rulebook FAQ:

Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’ and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the unit/model is within.

The whole imaginary Baneblade must be within 7" of the table edge; if it can't fit you can't deploy it. If the rule had said 'within' you could toe in, but it didn't.

As backup for this, see the various Deployment FAQs in the same document - example:

Deployment
Change ‘A player’s models must be set up within their own deployment zone’ to read:
‘A player’s models must be set up wholly within their own deployment zone.’

Now unless you're going to try and tell everyone that means you can just toe in to your deployment zone, you can't say it means the hypothetical Tallarn Baneblade can toe in to the 7" zone. I'm sure everyone accepts that the Deployment FAQs (and common sense/decades of precedent) mean you deploy in your Deployment zone, unless special rules say otherwise? Right? This is no different - just a different box to deploy in, but you must still be wholly within it.

**BaconCatBug**

Well, if you disagree then clearly I am wrong. Thank you for correcting me.

**JohnnyHell**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Well, if you disagree then clearly I am wrong. Thank you for correcting me.

It would be great if you could argue in good faith and actually address my points, instead of this all-too-regular snippy behaviour. I'll happily discuss, and I've been polite. If you'd like to do the same that would be great. I believe the FAQ and the Deployment examples within make this cut and dried. You disagree. Please provide backup for your position or anything from the rules that you feel disproves mine, and we can discuss.

Otherwise just skip this kind of post, please, as it adds nothing to the thread and comes across as churlish.

**BaconCatBug**

I am being sincere. You are right and I was wrong. It's all a moot point because the Baneblade fits anyway.

**JohnnyHell**

BaconCatBug wrote:
I am being sincere. You are right and I was wrong. It's all a moot point because the Baneblade fits anyway.

Ok, that's good to know, but in that case please watch your wording... the start of the first sentence read as deliberately antagonistic: "Well if you disagree then clearly I am wrong" does not mean what you then wrote above. Great to hear you mistyped and you didn't mean to antagonise, though, makes the whole world a happier place.

**cult_of_the_void_dragon**

And now I officially also know I can wedge a baneblade on a table edge! They should probably update that somehow because honestly even ignoring super heavies the concept of 9 lemans or 6 and 3 hellhounds etc seems incredibly excessive and like a sure fire way to table an opponent if done correctly. There's no counter to that move other than to try to put models against your table edge to prevent them from having the 9" away part, and that just prevents them from starting said super heavies in the middle of your army. They're still coming in guns blazing, and if you throw "crush them" in as well you've got the lovely 2+ to hit in cc with your tracks and any HB or HF are firing like pistols.

**Derek4real**

Marius Xerxes wrote:
Interested to see how this works with vehicle units. In this example ill use Hellhounds.

First, the rules in use.

Ambush: "Use this stratagem during deployment. Choose up to three Tallarn units to setup in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield."

Vehicle Squadron: "The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes."

My question/clarification is basically order of operations.

During deployment when choosing units to put in ambush, is a vehicle squadron is still a single unit of x vehicle models? If it is treated as separated, then how to you place them within 6" of each other if they are not even on the board? In terms that makes sense for the game, that is. I don't think the point would be to measure off table to be sure models are within 6" in your case, display or side board.

A diamond in the rough stratagem. I thought of this yesterday too. Hellhounds, Leman Russ', Cyclops Demo Tanks, Rough Riders, Ogyrns in Chimera.......

**NH Gunsmith**

Yeah, nonsense like this is why I am shelving my Tallarn army for a bit. Going to give people some time to adjust to the new Guard while I play my Blood Angels for a bit, unless somebody goes out of their way and asks to play 40k on hard mode against my army. It just doesn't feel sporting against our casual gaming group to bring an army like that, since why would I NOT use the tools presented to us.

**Derek4real**

The real question is....

Can you deploy your army (as if your not using that stratagem), then use it as a counter deployment after seeing how he deploys.

Example: Opponent is deploying carelessly and leaves an "inviting area" where I can squeeze some "stuff in". Can I then choose to use that stratagem and pull those models off the table and put them in "ambush"?

**JohnnyHell**

Derek4real wrote:
The real question is....

Can you deploy your army (as if your not using that stratagem), then use it as a counter deployment after seeing how he deploys.

Example: Opponent is deploying carelessly and leaves an "inviting area" where I can squeeze some "stuff in". Can I then choose to use that stratagem and pull those models off the table and put them in "ambush"?

The wording starts...

Use this Stratagem during deployment.

...so yes, absolutely could exploit that! :-O

You couldn't pull them off the table if already set up though.

**NH Gunsmith**

Derek4real wrote:
The real question is....

Can you deploy your army (as if your not using that stratagem), then use it as a counter deployment after seeing how he deploys.

Example: Opponent is deploying carelessly and leaves an "inviting area" where I can squeeze some "stuff in". Can I then choose to use that stratagem and pull those models off the table and put them in "ambush"?

I don't believe so, can you place models that have the capabilities to be held in reserve (Assault Marines/Terminators) in reserve after deploying them on the table? No, you can't remove them from the table and hold them off to the side. Same with the Strategem for the Raven Guard, you can't infiltrate something that's already on the board.

The most logical explanation is that you select that Strategem before the game and declare the units doing it, paying its CP cost as well. It doesn't seem to FORCE you to infiltrate them, so you can place them in your deployment zone if you choose, but it seems you have to declare it because it looks to be a Strategem that takes place before the game begins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, I may be wrong then! Interesting, seems pretty busted if it works that way.

**JohnnyHell**

NH Gunsmith wrote:
Derek4real wrote:
The real question is....

Can you deploy your army (as if your not using that stratagem), then use it as a counter deployment after seeing how he deploys.

Example: Opponent is deploying carelessly and leaves an "inviting area" where I can squeeze some "stuff in". Can I then choose to use that stratagem and pull those models off the table and put them in "ambush"?

I don't believe so, can you place models that have the capabilities to be held in reserve (Assault Marines/Terminators) in reserve after deploying them on the table? No, you can't remove them from the table and hold them off to the side. Same with the Strategem for the Raven Guard, you can't infiltrate something that's already on the board.

The most logical explanation is that you select that Strategem before the game and declare the units doing it, paying its CP cost as well. It doesn't seem to FORCE you to infiltrate them, so you can place them in your deployment zone if you choose, but it seems you have to declare it because it looks to be a Strategem that takes place before the game begins.

No, the first sentence says "during Deployment". You're right he couldn't pull models already set up, due to later wording in the Strategem, but there's no need to declare it or do it before deployment begins.

**NH Gunsmith**

Yeah, I added a post onto my original one. Not having the Codex in front of me kind of makes it a pain to look these up, since I am going off of memory.

**JohnnyHell**

NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yeah, I added a post onto my original one. Not having the Codex in front of me kind of makes it a pain to look these up, since I am going off of memory.

Ah I see, we were simul-posting! :-)

**NH Gunsmith**

JohnnyHell wrote:
NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yeah, I added a post onto my original one. Not having the Codex in front of me kind of makes it a pain to look these up, since I am going off of memory.

Ah I see, we were simul-posting! :-)

Yeah, it seems to happen quite a bit on these hot threads! It is interesting, knowledge is power in this game. Until I watched some battle reports, people didn't think you could spend a CP to reroll Seize the Initiative. I now do it every game I can.

**Mr. Shine**

The Stratagem itself says being set up in ambush is done instead of placing them on the battlefield.

Once you've placed them on the battlefield you've... placed them on the battlefield, so I don't see why you could go back and perform the alternative action.

EDIT: I am apparently the last guest at arriving to the party

**Derek4real**

you use certain stratagems when the opportunity is right...

How else would you use this Stratagem? I mean the second you tell them your using this stratagem they can counter deploy.

the Stratagem says DURING DEPLOYMENT. As long as I have something to deploy, I'm still in the deployment phase. I just have to make sure I have plenty of drops. The Stratagem allows me to put them in ambush regardless of if they are on the table or not. Cause if I wasn't gonna use the Stratagem unless the right opportunity was given.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NH Gunsmith wrote:

I don't believe so, can you place models that have the capabilities to be held in reserve (Assault Marines/Terminators) in reserve after deploying them on the table? No, you can't remove them from the table and hold them off to the side. Same with the Strategem for the Raven Guard, you can't infiltrate something that's already on the board.

The most logical explanation is that you select that Strategem before the game and declare the units doing it, paying its CP cost as well. It doesn't seem to FORCE you to infiltrate them, so you can place them in your deployment zone if you choose, but it seems you have to declare it because it looks to be a Strategem that takes place before the game begins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, I may be wrong then! Interesting, seems pretty busted if it works that way.

Your Raven Guard Stratagem says:
(1CP) Use this Stratagem when you set up a Raven Guard Infantry unit during deployment. You can set up the unit in the shadows instead of placing it on the battlefield.

In your case your Stratagem specifically tells you when your deploying said unit.

There is no such restriction on the Tallaran Ambush.

**JohnnyHell**

Derek4real wrote:
you use certain stratagems when the opportunity is right...

How else would you use this Stratagem? I mean the second you tell them your using this stratagem they can counter deploy.

the Stratagem says DURING DEPLOYMENT. As long as I have something to deploy, I'm still in the deployment phase. I just have to make sure I have plenty of drops. The Stratagem allows me to put them in ambush regardless of if they are on the table or not.

This last part isn't correct. The Stratagem says:

Choose up to three TALLARN units to set up in ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield.

Emphasis mine. It allows you to place in ambush instead of deploying on the battlefield, so you couldn't choose units you've already placed on the battlefield. They're deployed already.