Charging and Defending the Camp

[Hamilcar]

There's been some, (actually a lot) of criticism for why I let my camp be endangered in the first place. It's simple. 4 Roman horse charged by 6 Numidian cav. Despite the numerical advantage, they lose the impact, I roll a 3 on the cohesion test, they break in the melee round. I thought that flank would be safe for at least 4 turns, but dice hate me. After wiping out my LH in pursuit, they find themselves close to my camp and decide to try for it. In the meantime, I've double marched a unit of Cv with a leader to cover the camp. They simply run around it and take the camp the following turn (without coming within 2"). No matter how I positioned by Cav, the LH could have taken the camp unless, and this is the vital point, my Cv can intercept charge the LH. That is why I am convinced that the camp should be treated as a unit (it is listed as a unit on the army list, after all).

[dave_r]

I don't think there has been any criticism, just you posted an example and we then developed our own argument

The problem is that you move into contact with the camp - i.e. there is no charge. To intercept you would have to carry out a charge.

I suppose the counter argument is that why would you charge a camp? It would make sense to me for troops to ignore the enemy for a bit of loot and plunder which is exactly what is happening here.

[DavidT]

Once the LH have moved into contact with your camp, they cannot move away until they rioll a CMT in their movement phase. So on your next turn, you can happily charge your Cv into the rear or flank of the LH who cannot evade - giving you 2AP to make up for the 2AP your opponent will get for sacking your camp.

[babyshark]

Once the LH have moved into contact with your camp, they cannot move away until they rioll a CMT in their movement phase. So on your next turn, you can happily charge your Cv into the rear or flank of the LH who cannot evade - giving you 2AP to make up for the 2AP your opponent will get for sacking your camp.

The LH can evade, as they are not in close combat with the camp. The LH may have an issue with the direction of their evade, though.

Marc

[jlopez]

There's been some, (actually a lot) of criticism for why I let my camp be endangered in the first place. It's simple. 4 Roman horse charged by 6 Numidian cav. Despite the numerical advantage, they lose the impact, I roll a 3 on the cohesion test, they break in the melee round. I thought that flank would be safe for at least 4 turns, but dice hate me. After wiping out my LH in pursuit, they find themselves close to my camp and decide to try for it. In the meantime, I've double marched a unit of Cv with a leader to cover the camp. They simply run around it and take the camp the following turn (without coming within 2"). No matter how I positioned by Cav, the LH could have taken the camp unless, and this is the vital point, my Cv can intercept charge the LH. That is why I am convinced that the camp should be treated as a unit (it is listed as a unit on the army list, after all).

Like it's been suggested above, you need to decide before the game starts whether you are going to defend your baggage or not then stick to the plan. It's loss is annoying but not critical so you have to think hard about how many points you want to use defending it against what may be a hypothetical threat.

IMHO, you either cough up the 24 points to fortify it or you do nothing. Leaving crap units behind to "cover" it is just asking for trouble as your opponent may decide that so many easy attrition points may be worth the effort of mounting a serious attack against the baggage.

Julian

[grahambriggs]

There's been some, (actually a lot) of criticism for why I let my camp be endangered in the first place. It's simple. 4 Roman horse charged by 6 Numidian cav. Despite the numerical advantage, they lose the impact, I roll a 3 on the cohesion test, they break in the melee round. I thought that flank would be safe for at least 4 turns, but dice hate me. After wiping out my LH in pursuit, they find themselves close to my camp and decide to try for it. In the meantime, I've double marched a unit of Cv with a leader to cover the camp. They simply run around it and take the camp the following turn (without coming within 2"). No matter how I positioned by Cav, the LH could have taken the camp unless, and this is the vital point, my Cv can intercept charge the LH. That is why I am convinced that the camp should be treated as a unit (it is listed as a unit on the army list, after all).

Unfortunately numbers don't count at impact and sounds like you had a bad break or two. Once that's happened it's quite hard to recover. An option in such circumstances could be to let the LH get to the camp, then charge them while they are looting (they can't evade).

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

It has been suggested here that the LH who moved into contact with the camp during their Maneuver Phase will not be able to move away from the camp unless they pass a CMT during their next Maneuver Phase - and are therefore vulnerable to a charge by the enemy Cav during its next Impact Phase.

It has also been suggested that the LH would be able to evade any such charge because they are not in close combat with the camp.

I think both suggestions are wrong. The LH take a CMT during the JAP of their turn to stop looting the camp. "If they succeed they are free to move normally in their next turn" (pg 107).

1. I think this means that if they fail the CMT, they are NOT free to move normally, are still looting and could not evade if charged in the next enemy Impact Phase.

2. BUT - what if they pass? The rules say they can move normally in their next turn, but what about in the enemy turn? I think they should be able to evade in the enemy's turn but can see where the rule could be read to dis allow this.


Terry G.

[Cynical]

2. BUT - what if they pass? The rules say they can move normally in their next turn, but what about in the enemy turn? I think they should be able to evade in the enemy's turn but can see where the rule could be read to dis allow this.

I haven’t got my rule book with me but if I recall correctly you remove the camp when the looters pass their CMT to stop looting.

So the camp isn’t there and the evade would be possible.

[babyshark]

<snip>

I think both suggestions are wrong. The LH take a CMT during the JAP of their turn to stop looting the camp. "If they succeed they are free to move normally in their next turn" (pg 107).

1. I think this means that if they fail the CMT, they are NOT free to move normally, are still looting and could not evade if charged in the next enemy Impact Phase.

The language about "free to move normally . . ." refers to the BG's next Maneuver phase. The Evade rules list the conditions in which BGs can and cannot evade. I am at work, and therefore don't have a page cite for you.

Marc

[nikgaukroger]

2. BUT - what if they pass? The rules say they can move normally in their next turn, but what about in the enemy turn? I think they should be able to evade in the enemy's turn but can see where the rule could be read to dis allow this.

I haven’t got my rule book with me but if I recall correctly you remove the camp when the looters pass their CMT to stop looting.

You are indeed correct.

[ShrubMiK]

I'm with Dave on this. Consider: Winning the lottery is even more restricted than an integer proposition, it's a purely binary one. You either get one win, or you don't. The probability of getting a win is in the ballpark of 0.0000001. But you can't get 0.0000001 wins, in real life therefore you will get 0 wins. From which we can clearly see that nobody will ever win the lottery unless they buy at least 10 million tickets.

[fgilson]

A lottery actually involves several calculations. One is Expected Value (EV)...or rather what the exchange of buying one ticket is worth monetarily. This will almost always be negative due to the payoff matrix, filtering down through the odds, being less than the cost of one ticket. Also, as a payout pool grows, more and more people buy lottery tickets, and often more than one person wins the big prize, which must then be split...further diluting the payout.

The EV does generally become less negative as the lottery payout pool increases. However, for practical purposes, you won't find a lottery with a positive EV (as it would be a mistake to offer one, and investors could pool together to try to buy every possible ticket...which has happened when such lottery payout mistakes were made, on at least one occasion).

So...you may find that buying one lottery ticket provides you with a subjective entertainment value. This SEnV will generally also increase as the payout pool increases.

Therefore, wait until a lottery grows large enough to excite you, and buy one ticket (no more, as buying multiple tickets hits you with multiple negative EV, but you don't get a multiple SEnV, usually, for more than one ticket). Ignore the lottery entirely the rest of the time.

[ottomanmjm]

The following quote is from RBS in a previous thread on thei issue (Overlap a nd camp looting questions) in Feb 2010

"They can't evade while looting. (They can if attacking a fortified camp that they have not yet successfully diced to sack). "

[deadtorius]

Obviously looting keeps them more occupied than watching to see who might be lurking nearby with sharp pointy sticks. I suppose with fortified camps part of the unit is hanging back shouting out support and keeping an eye out for the enemy lurking with sharp pointy sticks.

[philqw78]

Obviously looting keeps them more occupied than watching to see who might be lurking nearby with sharp pointy sticks. I suppose with fortified camps part of the unit is hanging back shouting out support and keeping an eye out for the enemy lurking with sharp pointy sticks.

Or RBS is not the only writer of rules. Needs to be FAQ'd