fightingennemy fortified camp?

domblas · Post by **domblas** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:06 pm

is there break off when mounted fight ennemy fortified camp?
can a BG decide to stop attacking an ennemy camp?

fogly

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:55 pm

is there break off when mounted fight ennemy fortified camp?

Definitely not. It is not a melee.

can a BG decide to stop attacking an ennemy camp?

Yes - I believe so.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:34 pm

Can they?

I thought they had to pass a CMT to stop looting and until then were locked in place.

Could they evade if charged and they were attacking a fortified camp? What about an unfortified one?

I must admit this is something I have found to be very unclear in the rules.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:43 pm

Off the top of my head I would say that until they get through the fortifications they aren't looting so they don't need a CMT to stop. Of course reading the rules may get me to change my mind

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:19 pm

I believe that you can stop attacking a camp at anytime since it is not considered a melee, the defenders are not going to run out and chase after you since they are not actually combat troops in a fortified camp.

Unfortified camp all you have to do is walk up to it and make contact and its sacked, now getting your troops to stop looting and enjoying the spoils is another thing and will require you to make a die roll to regain control.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:06 am

dave_r wrote:Can they?

yes

dave_r wrote:I thought they had to pass a CMT to stop looting and until then were locked in place.

They are not yet looting

dave_r wrote: Could they evade if charged and they were attacking a fortified camp?

Yes as they are not in melee or looting yet

dave_r wrote: What about an unfortified one?

They would have to CMT to evade as they would be looting

dave_r wrote:I must admit this is something I have found to be very unclear in the rules.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:15 am

If the CMT to stop looting is in the JAP, this implies to me that the evade is not possible because the only option to stop looting is in the JAP, not the charge phase.
I don't have the rules here to check.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:48 am

P64 allows eligible troops to evade unless they are in close combat other than as an overlap. I think we're all agreed that looting is not close combat. However, P107 requires a CMT in the JAP to stop looting. So, as I see it the options are:

1) You can only stop looting in the JAP and therefore if you're charged you have to take it.

2) P107 only covers stopping voluntarily so that the BG can go to do something else. Responding to a charge is different.

Personally, I'd go for 2, but I can see the arguments both ways.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:39 am

I stand by my original post.

Until the fortified camp is taken, the attacking BG is free to move away. It is not covered explicitly in the rules, but since a camp is not a BG, it does not exert a zone of influence, so there is nothing to stop the attacking BG moving elsewhere.

Once the camp is taken and the BG is looting - then I agree it must successfully CMT to stop looting before it can move away or evade.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:11 pm

BGs in contact with a fortified camp are not looting unless one of them has successfully rolled to sack it.

Until then, rules that apply to looting BGs do not apply to them......

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:25 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:BGs in contact with a fortified camp are not looting unless one of them has successfully rolled to sack it.

So if 4 BG are in contact and 1 succeeds are all then in the process of sacking the camp?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:12 pm

philqw78 wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:BGs in contact with a fortified camp are not looting unless one of them has successfully rolled to sack it.
So if 4 BG are in contact and 1 succeeds are all then in the process of sacking the camp?

It follows from the wording below:

Once a camp is sacked, battle groups in contact with it must pass a CMT in the joint action phase to stop looting.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:31 am

Thanks. Something I'll remember next time someone puts 4 BG into my fortified camp.

But does every BG in contact have to attempt to sack the camp.

Imagine the scene. I have my camp 10 MU forwards. 4 Enemy BG in column approach the camp. 2 contact a short edge and the other 2 contact different corners of that short edge. If any break in are they all looting? Must the player say which are attempting to break in if not. Or can he just start rolling and not bother rolling again once one gets in, saying they weren't trying anyway.

camp

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:58 am

philqw78 wrote:Thanks. Something I'll remember next time someone puts 4 BG into my fortified camp.

But does every BG in contact have to attempt to sack the camp.

Imagine the scene. I have my camp 10 MU forwards. 4 Enemy BG in column approach the camp. 2 contact a short edge and the other 2 contact different corners of that short edge. If any break in are they all looting? Must the player say which are attempting to break in if not. Or can he just start rolling and not bother rolling again once one gets in, saying they weren't trying anyway.

camp

According to the wording above they all have to test to stop looting. You should be so lucky.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:42 am

rbodleyscott wrote:According to the wording above they all have to test to stop looting. You should be so lucky.

It happened to me but the umpire ruled only the ones that got in had to test as they were the only ones sacking the camp. We got the umpire over before dice were rolled, as we were both unsure, and my opponent decided to sack with only 2 of his BG's, only one of which succeeded. Last bound was called soon after so not much of a difference as they didn't get very far past were the camp used to be.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:20 pm

Given that the rule is (I assume) supposed to represent personal greed of the commanders and soldiers involved taking precedence over what's good for the army as a whole, it seems fairly obvious that any sufficiently close BG when the camp is breached should get involved in sacking it.

Exactly how "sufficiently close" should be defined is of course the question, but I certainly find it hard to believe that any other BG which is in contact with the camp would not be assumed to get involved when the chance for easy loot comes up.