TWC Tag Team Tournament TATW Semi Final

[joerock22]

Ah, yes, that is the one. I just looked up the hotseat. I don't recall if I had any forces helping Mordor, but MT fell eventually so I had to watch Aldburg.

But more importantly, I see that in this HS opening gates with spies wasn't allowed, thus significantly reducing the effectiveness of my rush, where I put pressure on both Dunland and Isengard, which is a lot easier to defend if you need only 1 unit garrison and cover both sides with a large army.

Yes, that's right. I forgot about spies not being allowed to open gates. In the beginning I distinctly remember thinking that was the biggest reason why I had a chance to stop your rush. That prediction turned out to be correct. That rule was a huge determining factor in the outcome of the game.

[General Dragon.]

I forgot to add to my previous post with the save, that I captured a lone Harad village in the vast desert below Ammu Khand.

[Adanedhel]

I'm actually tempted to prove you wrong, but would need to find some time first to do my homework, since I've never played Isengard. Like you Chieftain, I would simulate enough scenarios and find a way. As I'm reading, the other players went for rebel territories, which was a mistake. The key is to survive the first onslaught. Then we're in for a stalemate, unless someone wants to play a risky game.

[joerock22]

Boromir and Denethor combine to completely destroy a large force of orcs. The nazgul commander must have thought that Gondor’s defenses were weakened. An unwise assumption! With the mountain pass cut off by an intrepid unit of Gondorian cavalry, the survivors of the battle perish or disburse to the winds, never again to take up arms against the West.

Now, perhaps, the way into Mordor is finally open…

Harad:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL...ew?usp=sharing

Screenshots:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL...ew?usp=sharing


The Mordor player will probably notice that his army was not in the same position as where he left it. Yes, I lured his army one tile out of ambush. However, I do not feel that this is a rule violation for two reasons:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ambush function makes no logical sense
Normally, a hidden army is invisible unless the other player places an army or agent right next to it. If a military force is the first to make this discovery, the hidden army ambushes. If an agent spots the hidden army, however, say with a spy, then the hidden army no longer ambushes when military forces are placed next to it.

I did discover that large armies handle the ambush function differently. Mordor’s army was visible at the very beginning of the turn, before I moved an agent anywhere near it, yet it was still in ambush position. Then Mordor’s army ambushes by default no matter how many times it is spotted by spies, etc. So the ambush function prevented me from placing my two armies next to Mordor’s army no matter what I tried.

To me this is an unfair result. Logically, if Boromir knows that Mordor’s army is there, why would he purposely march into an ambush? He would hold back and wait for reinforcements from Denethor before approaching too close. The game forces me to move my armies separately, but really they are moving at the same time to engage Mordor at the same time. So I don’t think Mordor should escape here just because the game engine uses an ambush function that doesn’t make logical sense. To me, the ambush function for smaller armies described above is the one that makes logical sense. I’m not sure why it treats large armies differently.

I did not violate the rule
Here is the rule:

“You are not allowed to lure an ambushing army a tile further to bring it in range of more of your forces.” (emphasis added)

I did not lure Mordor’s army out of ambush to bring it in range of more of my forces. I did not engage with any units which were not already in range. I only did it to avoid the nonsensical ambush function described above. The purpose of this rule is to prevent a very specific circumstance where the enemy army is safely out of range, and is only brought into range by forcing it to ambush and move a tile closer. This is not what occurred here.

In conclusion, there is no rule violation. We’ve never had a rule which states that luring armies out of ambush in all circumstances is illegal. Only in that one specific circumstance is it prohibited.

[Adanedhel]

So you're saying that both your armies were in range of the nazgul while he was in ambush position and capable of initiating a battle? In other words, if the nazgul did not move out of ambush position and just stayed there like in the case of smaller forces after being discovered, would you be able to place both armies next to him and start a battle?

Besides, wasn't BlackWolf counting on this rule-mechanic being in place and protecting his army?

[Dux]

While I understand Joe's reasoning, I argue it is not allowed. Let us take a look at this rule and the situation:

"You are not allowed to lure an ambushing army a tile further to bring it in range of more of your forces."

You are arguing that you did not break this rule as you did not lure the army out of ambush to bring it in range of more of your forces, as those forces were already in range of the enemy army.

However, the ambush function works in such a way that only one army can attack or be attacked by an ambushing army. Therefore, by luring it out of ambush, you did bring it in range of more of your forces. While in ambush position, a player ensures that only one enemy army can attack his forces, this is a valid strategy, especially when one lacks forts. However, by luring the army out of ambush you were able to attack with two armies, thus bring the enemy army in range of more of your forces. The rule specifically states this is not allowed.

I understand your point that it does not make sense, and that normally if you put an agent next to it the army is out of ambushing position, but that does not dispute the fact that what you did here is clearly against the rule. I did not think up the wording of the above rule, but I do argue that what you did here is not allowed.

I do appreciate other players' opinion about this issue.

[General Dragon.]

I have to agree with Dux on this, because while Joe's claim is indeed a reasonable one, however in TATW there are no forts you can drop down where you need and as such you have to use other measures, which the ambusing thing can be claimed as one.

[joerock22]

Dux, you are misinterpreting the rule. The rule was designed to prevent the situation where an army is drawn forward and otherwise a victory is impossible because the troops are out of range. I know, because I was one of the major proponents of that rule who resulted in it being incorporated into the majority of TATW hotseats. I may have written that exact language myself! This was not the intent, I can assure you.

It would be extremely ridiculous to let Mordor escape here. Think about what you're saying. Mordor put his army in range of all of my forces. Why should he get away with it just because his army is in ambush position?

You guys are essentially saying that Mordor's army is IMMUNE FROM ATTACK as long as it's in ambush position. Because I'll never beat him 1 vs. 1. How can you make such a ruling? It's blatantly unfair.

[Chieftain Khuzaymah]

Well, I understand what you say and trust me, I had a discussion about this as well with Joe. I just wasn't sure what was legal here or not. The army is lured, yes, but then why is it in ambushing mode?

As far as I know, when you have a stack with max 10 units, you will be able to hide/ambush. Any number of units above 10 is no longer an ambushing army. As many more can probably argue, sometimes it happens a larger stack than 10 units hides and ambushes. To my belief, this happens totally random, and, perhaps, is a bug. But I think it is not supposed to be that way. In any case, I doubt Wolf made this move to 'be safe from being attacked by 2 armies at once thanks to ambushing'. I rather doubt it. Even if this is the strategy behind this move, I will right now propose to forbid this, because some stacks are too powerful. Especially Mordor and Dwarves are able to produce stacks which can almost not be defeated by more than 1 full stack of any other faction, hence this would be an unfair advantage for such factions.

Putting everything said above aside, I sort of replicated this scenario to test how ambushing really works:

Normal ambushing, as you can see below. Any army with less than 10 units will take a hiding/ambushing position in forests.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing

When you put together armies with 11 units or more and move into a forest tile to hide/ambush, the army no longer hides or ambushes. (See both armies below with 10+ units).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing

Now, I put a full stack together and put it in the spot where it is in our HS. But there is no hiding or ambushing. As I come close to it, I can see it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing

I can even stand next to it, and then attack it with 2 armies at once.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing

Hence this supports my belief that full stacks ambushing is totally random, not supposed to happen and thus a bug in the game. Remember, in those pictures I just shared, Khamul is fully stacked up and at precisely the same spot as the army in our HS. So what is the difference?

Thus I fully support Joe in both a game mechanical and logical way of thinking that this battle is allowed. Again, if it would be allowed to ambush with full stacks on purpose, we would lose game balance completely.

[Adanedhel]

Hence this supports my belief that full stacks ambushing is totally random, not supposed to happen and thus a bug in the game.

This is not entirely true. I simulated this scenario and you can purposefully put an entire stack in ambush position as long as you do it gradually. Screens below.

10 units in ambush position:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...Wg1bnpRZXg1c0U

A couple more:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...0hvZFA1akJ4eE0

More units being placed in the stack:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...zJwVjA2WDA0cEk

And finally we have a full stack:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...GJWOXZwUFJIZ28

Ending turn and going to Gondor. You can clearly see that the Mordor army is in fact in ambush position as it was meant to be, although it is visible from afar:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...E8xT1VhelV6MDg

Maybe I'm being biased, but I also agree with Dux. By luring the Mordor army out of ambush position, you did in fact moved them in range of more of your forces, since the game engine only allows you to attack with one army. As mentioned before, this is one of the few strategies the Mordor player has at his disposal, lacking severely in movement points as compared to Gondor, and being able to move only on land (Gondor has ships and has immunity while on them).

[joerock22]

Maybe I'm being biased, but I also agree with Dux. By luring the Mordor army out of ambush position, you did in fact moved them in range of more of your forces, since the game engine only allows you to attack with one army.

No, I didn't. You guys are confusing the meaning of the rule again. Specifically in range of and more of your forces. Even if you can say that more of my forces can now attack, they were already in range!

As mentioned before, this is one of the few strategies the Mordor player has at his disposal, lacking severely in movement points as compared to Gondor, and being able to move only on land (Gondor has ships and has immunity while on them).

True, but that doesn't make it legitimate. Think about what Mordor would do with this. If his army had a ballista (which he may yet be able to get), he could march his army anywhere there is a forest and capture any settlement he wants. With as many forests as there are in Gondor and the surrounding lands, he can literally march through my territory with absolute impunity.

Don't believe me? Let's play a game then, me as Mordor and you as Gondor with this rule in place. Then we'll see if your tune changes.

(Gondor's "immunity" on ships, in contrast, only extends to the area around the Anduin, and Mordor can work around that. I haven't even really used the ships at all this game except for transportation purposes)

[Chieftain Khuzaymah]

This is not entirely true. I simulated this scenario and you can purposefully put an entire stack in ambush position as long as you do it gradually. Screens below.

10 units in ambush position:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...Wg1bnpRZXg1c0U

A couple more:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...0hvZFA1akJ4eE0

More units being placed in the stack:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...zJwVjA2WDA0cEk

And finally we have a full stack:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...GJWOXZwUFJIZ28

Ending turn and going to Gondor. You can clearly see that the Mordor army is in fact in ambush position as it was meant to be, although it is visible from afar:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0...E8xT1VhelV6MDg

Maybe I'm being biased, but I also agree with Dux. By luring the Mordor army out of ambush position, you did in fact moved them in range of more of your forces, since the game engine only allows you to attack with one army. As mentioned before, this is one of the few strategies the Mordor player has at his disposal, lacking severely in movement points as compared to Gondor, and being able to move only on land (Gondor has ships and has immunity while on them).

Aha. Well, in that case, I would like to see a rule to prevent this. Or an additional rule for ambushing. Any army that exceeds 10 units does not apply for the 'ambush-luring' rule.

As we said, as Mordor or Dwarves you can then on purpose put your full stack in ambush and you will have superiority over anything. This simply can not be allowed. I don't say that because it is in our favor in this HS, I mean it for every HS.

[Egyptian_Viking]

I don't really have an opinion on this as of yet. I'm still confused why my teammate decided to leave his army unprotected like that in the first place

Also, Joe about this here:

With the mountain pass cut off by an intrepid unit of Gondorian cavalry, the survivors of the battle perish or disburse to the winds, never again to take up arms against the West.

Is that allowed? That is a very dirty move. I always thought stuff like that was never ok to do.

[joerock22]

Is that allowed? That is a very dirty move. I always thought stuff like that was never ok to do.

I did it once before in this hotseat. See pages 7 to 8 of the thread. Back then would have been the time to object, in my opinion. I've always considered blocking a mountain pass to be the same as blocking a river crossing, i.e. both legal.

[Mithridate]

So I was checking progress on the tournament and saw this going on, since I love the imagined sound of my husky voice I thought I'd weigh in:

• You are not allowed to lure an ambushing army a tile further to bring it in range of more of your forces

This is rather clearly to prevent armies from being pulled further than they were intended to move by the one whom placed them there, most players check enemy movement ranges and place an army where they think it safe. But if the army enters ambushing mode, it can be pulled out of that "safe range" into where it can be defeated - with the ambushing player unable to prevent this despite precations ( there is one way to prevent it, but few know how ). Thus an army moving against the will of its player.

Say you see 2 enemy armies and some scattered units, you end your turn in range only of some of the scattered units - but then the enemy pulls you out towards those 2 armies and you get slaughtered. Without moving you towards those forces, you are safe. That situation is what the rule is to prevent. I've done this multiple times to others and been subject of it, it is quite unpleasant If however, the army is in range of everything - you can pull it out if you want and defeat it with all forces whom were in range.

by luring the army out of ambush you were able to attack with two armies, thus bring the enemy army in range of more of your forces. The rule specifically states this is not allowed.

If the rule was meant to force anyone to fight 1v1 stack then it would have been worded differently, and if it was like that you would severely disadvantage certain factions in this mod. You can make near invincible stacks with the dwarves for example if your enemy is forced to fight you with only one army. Also: Ambushing in Medieval II is really, really funky^^

Also, he did not bring it in range of more forces from what is stated - he allowed more forces to fight it at once. Ambushing does not guarantee 1v1 fights either.

You are arguing that you did not break this rule as you did not lure the army out of ambush to bring it in range of more of your forces, as those forces were already in range of the enemy army.

When in doubt: hardline the rules, which makes that argument rather air-tight... IE cannot pull it one square further, or if you do: only units that could reach it in its original position may participate in the fight.

[JWANT]

I think Joe has the right interpretation here. Mithridate just provided a great explanation about why +rep. I do not believe this rule was created to allow 1v1 only against armies in ambush position - that would be silly in a mod with such unbalanced AR (as already mentioned).

Re-wording the rule might help remove some confusion but I think the part where it says an army cannot be brought into range of more forces is enough to allow this move with the rule wording that is currently used.

So perhaps the admins of this hotseats are split on the issue as well

[TheBlackWolf]

Edit; Doesnt matter

[Chieftain Khuzaymah]

I do understand a lot of this technical stuff, going right over my head but I thought I would say a few things. First is as I remember I did not leave the army in ambush position, I think that I used all of their movement points for that turn which when they were restored at the beginning of the new turn meant the army immediately went into the ambush position. This is something I have seen before. It does seem a bit unfair that despite the fact I did not leave my stack in an ambush position, Gondor is able to take advantage of that. I can categorically say I did not put it into position gradually as Chieftain shows, I moved all my stack at once.

I am sorry if my explanation for my move is unnecessary, as I said I understood very little that was said above

No, as I explained, I first put a full stack together and then I moved it to the spot where you put it. Adanedhel did it gradually.
It clearly doesn't ambush when I replicated this scenario.

I don't understand what you mean by Gondor able to take advantage. Take advantage of what?

For me there is no question this battle is allowed, considering the immense implications for this mod if it would not be, confirmed by JWANT and Mith. I will await Dux' answer or play tomorrow evening local time (within 30h from this post) at the latest.

[TheBlackWolf]

No, as I explained, I first put a full stack together and then I moved it to the spot where you put it. Adanedhel did it gradually.
It clearly doesn't ambush when I replicated this scenario.

I don't understand what you mean by Gondor able to take advantage. Take advantage of what?

For me there is no question this battle is allowed, considering the immense implications for this mod if it would not be, confirmed by JWANT and Mith. I will await Dux' answer or play tomorrow evening local time (within 30h from this post) at the latest.

Sorry mixed it up, I'm just lost in this debate

[themzr]

Joe made the argument that it doesn't make tactical sense for boromir to only fight the witch king one army at a time which is true. However the witch King of Angmar is a 10*+ general. How much sense does it make for him to let his whole army chase after a single gondorian unit and ruin his element of surprise as well as suspecting it might be a trap.

Also is Joe able to move his cavalry around to the mountain pass to cut off Khamul's retreat before he pulls him out of the woods.
Furthermore (at least to me) it makes little sense that somehow it is illegal to use sieges of settlements with 1 unit to deny reinforcements of armies but it is legal to use 1 unit of cav to cut off the retreat of a whole army and make it die? That makes little strategical and historical sense. Does anyone else believe 2,300 orcs will be stopped by a single unit of militia cavalry?