Sacking Baggage

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:53 am

Hi All,

I think the answer to this question is self evident, but will ask it anyway.

A BG of Huscarls has managed to fight its way through to the enemy fortified camp and move into contact in the manouver phase. 8" away and facing the huscarls is a BG of Cavalry (friendly to the camp) who are going to attempt to rescue the fortified baggage.

This is how I see the sequence of events, but correct me if I'm wrong:

During the melee phase the Huscarls roll one dice in an attempt to get a 5-6. They fail, getting a 1, but get a quality re-roll and roll a 3 - still failing.

The player controlling the Huscarls decide that he's best to face the coming cavalry because he doesn't want to be charged in the rear. He doesn't have to roll to stop sacking the camp, because he actually hasnt' started sacking the camp yet, so no roll is necessary during the Joint Action Phase.

In the next manouver phase the cavalry move 5" and end up 3" away from the rear of the Huscarls. During the melee phase the Huscarls attempt to sack the camp again, even though the player really doesn't want to - he's in combat contact so MUST roll. He lucks out and rolls a 4 freeing him to do a CMT in the next turn as he still isn't sacking the camp.

During his next manouver phase the player owning the Huscarls rolls a successful CMT and saves the day.

Now, query is basically to do with the sacking camps. Have I done it right, or would the Huscarls STILL have to roll to break contact with the camp? I've been caught before with overzealous Irishmen who are busy sacking camps only to be charged in the rear, so that would make fortified camps even more desirable, but just wondering what everyone else thinks.

Personally, I think the answer lies on p88:

a Fortified camp is assumed to be defended by camp guard, who must be defeated before the camp can be sacked.

(Emphasis added).

The fact that the camp guards haven't been defeated means that the sacking hasn't begun thus no dice need be rolled.

One other side to the question would be 'can they break contact'? I mean, only mounted can break hth contact and only against stead foot!!!

Ian

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:53 am

I think you've done it correctly Ian.

The one wrinkle, is that when your BG turns 180 degrees to face the enemy, it is still in contact with the enemy camp. 'Contact' is the only requirement for camp sacking. So I believe you'd continue to roll to defeat the camp guards, whilst being in combat with the enemy cav.

Think of it as a select detachment trying to break through the gate whilst the rest of the Huscarls sort out the cavalry.

But of course others may disagree!

Pete

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:15 am

Asked and answered by TerryS:

"Once you have no troops in front edge contact with the camp, you are no longer fighting (sacking) it, and so will have effectively broken off - so the camp is removed."

viewtopic.php?t=5430

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:15 am

Terry's answer is problematic in that (as I don't think the rules actually say that and (b) it gives you a way of stopping sacking a camp without having to take the CMT which is clearly against the intent of the rules (as well as I think the wording).

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:33 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Terry's answer is problematic in that (as I don't think the rules actually say that and (b) it gives you a way of stopping sacking a camp without having to take the CMT which is clearly against the intent of the rules (as well as I think the wording).

Have I got this right, if your in base contact with the camp you can't then do a 180 degree turn in your movement phase to face another enemy BG, and still be trying to sack the camp or can you.
Dave

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:35 pm

The question that Terry was answering was with regard to a BG sacking a camp, not one rolling to defeat the camp guards. It has limited application to this question as a result.

I do not think there is anything in the rules that allows the Huscarls to turn 180 while fighting to their front, even if they re only fighting camp followers. They must wait until the cavalry whack them in the rear o that they can reform.

Marc

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:55 pm

Sorry Marc - I disagree.

Why can't they choose to move away? They are not in close combat.

Pete

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:21 pm

I don't know if Huscarl are spearmen, but could speamen/pikemen make a CMT to put them in ORB while trying to sack the camp ?

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:57 pm

petedalby wrote:Sorry Marc - I disagree.

Why can't they choose to move away? They are not in close combat.

Pete

Your response prompted me to reread the rules for clarity.

Per p88, defeating a fortified camp happens in the melee phase (although it has its own separate die roll). Sacking an unfortified camp, on the other hand, requires no combat. Shifting to p134 to define combat: "'Close combat' is a general term for impact and melee phase combat." Defeating the camp guards is a combat, and it occurs in the melee phase. "Once such a combat has been joined, the BGs are deemed to be in close combat until . . . ." So far the text leads me to think that attacking a fortified camp is close combat, and the Huscarls are stuck.

However, the definition of close combat continues on say that "Impact and melee phase combat use the close combat mechanisms." Fighting camp guards clearly does not use the combat mechanisms, as it has its own special die roll. The only exception listed is for impact phase shooting. This leads me to think that perhaps fighting camp guards is not close combat after all.

Now I am not sure.

Marc

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:23 pm

Now I am not sure.

To be fair neither am I - the rules are not explicit.

But standing outside a fortified camp trying to get in is not the same as looting an unfortified one - nor is it the same as being in close combat with someone else trying to beat you up.

Help!

Pete

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:48 pm

I was wondering which way this debate was going and also re read some of the relevant rules and had come to the same conclusion that actually both ways seemed equally valid. Although I I did come across this in the sequence of play on page 168 and after "assualt fortified camps." the next sentence says after the above is completed for all combats, resolve cohesion tests for seeing friends break or commanders lost.
Sort of infering that the above was combat. Do you think that has a bearing on the debate.

cheers
Jim

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:03 pm

I would think that since the camp has some form of walls/gates until you break in an sack it you are not locked into a melee with the camp guards. The same would apply in a siege situation, you can attack the walls and call off your troops at anytime, the defenders would most likely stand on the walls and taunt you for failing.
If you are locked in melee you can't just run away (unless routing) since your opponent has nothing to stop from chasing you.
Also camps dont have any listed ZOI so can't pin an enemy unit even if they are in base contact with it, so potential sackers should be able to turn to face an enemy threat.
Now once the camp is breached and is being sacked..... well the sacking troops are too busy with the plunder and if the enemy shows up its usually bad news for the sackers who generally don't get a chance to reform and are sitting ducks for the camp rescuers.
Just my thoughts so I would have to say yes they could turn to face the cav since they obviously have some bright and observant officers.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:20 pm

frederic wrote:I don't know if Huscarl are spearmen, but could speamen/pikemen make a CMT to put them in ORB while trying to sack the camp ?

Orb trying to sack a camp? Laughable to visualize, but if it is not combat, why not?

This does nicely put a fine point on the issue.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:50 am

But standing outside a fortified camp trying to get in is not the same as looting an unfortified one - nor is it the same as being in close combat with someone else trying to beat you up.

Didn't Terry recently clarify that Close Combat was defined as a BG getting (or about to get) dice in either the impact or melee phase. Since the BG is getting dice in the melee phase doesn't this count as close combat?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:48 pm

Sort of infering that the above was combat. Do you think that has a bearing on the debate.

You could well be right Jim - or it could just confirm when you make the roll.

I'll ask RBS to review this tread if he hasn't done so already. It is another one of those 'I've never seen that before' issues because it's only likely to come up once in a blue moon.

Pete

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:08 am

MikeK wrote:Asked and answered by TerryS:

"Once you have no troops in front edge contact with the camp, you are no longer fighting (sacking) it, and so will have effectively broken off - so the camp is removed."
viewtopic.php?t=5430

No, if you haven't beaten the camp defenders (remember it's a fortified camp) then you haven't sacked it so it isn't removed.

Ian

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:21 am

babyshark wrote:The question that Terry was answering was with regard to a BG sacking a camp, not one rolling to defeat the camp guards. It has limited application to this question as a result.

I do not think there is anything in the rules that allows the Huscarls to turn 180 while fighting to their front, even if they re only fighting camp followers. They must wait until the cavalry whack them in the rear o that they can reform.

Marc

Hmm,

I'm not convinced this is combat. No combat dice are really being rolled. Difficult one as I can see both sides of the story.

Ian

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:36 am

From a pure game design/realism point of view, the purpose of attacking troops engaging a camp is to catch them at a disadvantage and/or stop the threat to the camp. If the camp attackers can do both by assaulting the camp with their rear then it seems nonsense.

Logically, then, the camp attackers can only do one or the other. Sometimes rescuers can force the attackers to turn all their bases away from contact from a fortified camp, sometimes not. If assaulting a fortified camp the attackers could try to do a 180 and fight the approaching enemy.

If looting a sacked unfortified camp they keep at it until they pass a CMT, or are forced to turn based away when charged by attackers. This honors the idea that they keep at the looting until able to reorganize themselves.

Mike

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:08 am

MikeK wrote:From a pure game design/realism point of view, the purpose of attacking troops engaging a camp is to catch them at a disadvantage and/or stop the threat to the camp. If the camp attackers can do both by assaulting the camp with their rear then it seems nonsense.

Logically, then, the camp attackers can only do one or the other. Sometimes rescuers can force the attackers to turn all their bases away from contact from a fortified camp, sometimes not. If assaulting a fortified camp the attackers could try to do a 180 and fight the approaching enemy.

If looting a sacked unfortified camp they keep at it until they pass a CMT, or are forced to turn based away when charged by attackers. This honors the idea that they keep at the looting until able to reorganize themselves.

Mike

I see your point, and agree that it is rediculous for a BG to be able to simultaneously attack camp AND defend their rear.

I think it's reasonable that an attempt to attack a fortified camp be aborted to respond to a new threat, and so the CMT to about face is fine, but they aren't in frontal contact and so shouldn't be able to continue sacking the camp.

Additionally, the notion of troops in (the purely defensive formation of) orb 'attacking' and sacking a camp is crazy.

Ian

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:35 am

DaiSho wrote: Additionally, the notion of troops in (the purely defensive formation of) orb 'attacking' and sacking a camp is crazy.
Ian

Indeed, but as Orbs fight in all directions and can move it scarily makes more sense than any other formation facing away from a camp and attacking the camp with side or rear. Even the lame camp followers would be fast enough to get away.