Charging into the Camp

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:58 pm

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:OK, that's cool. It seemed a bit cheesy to me. However, I will look at it (as Si suggests) as a few opportunistic groups leaving the rest of the BG to manfully defend against the enemy attack while they sneak off to loot the camp. Nothing wrong with a few of the boys being pragmatic, especially for a 2 AP gain.

Terry G.

It doesn't take many to do a bit of rape and pillage. I suppose it depends whose in the camp, if its the kings wife he may be happy that its pillaged, then again she may be happy with the none pillaging bit if the Kings not up to much?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:35 pm

Its not so much that the troops brushing the camp are immediately sacking it. But rather the army is panicked that their rear supply camp has fallen. What has actually happened there is for the hollywood version of FoG. From a top down persepctive. A quick roll to stop sacking just as likley means the troops never actually broke formation to "sack" the camp. They realized the battle was till on.

Similarly repeated failures to stop sacking the camp means wanton sacking is a blast.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:14 pm

Although this does bring up a bit of a poser. If whilst in contact with an enemy camp and fighting enemy BG you broke the enemy BG would you have to CMT to pursue or CMT not to pursue?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:13 pm

philqw78 wrote:Although this does bring up a bit of a poser. If whilst in contact with an enemy camp and fighting enemy BG you broke the enemy BG would you have to CMT to pursue or CMT not to pursue?

Not having the rules with me, I would adjudicate that the troops respond to the threat thus obey normal melee outcomes rules.

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:29 pm

Since the initial pursuit comes in the Melee Phase and the CMT to stop looting comes in the JAP, I would opine the pursuit takes precedence and a roll to stop looting would not become relevant unless the BG was still in contact with the camp in the JAP.

Terry G.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:35 pm

But it has been stated previously on a different looting thread that in order to evade a skirmisher BG must pass a CMT to do so.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:01 pm

philqw78 wrote:But it has been stated previously on a different looting thread that in order to evade a skirmisher BG must pass a CMT to do so.

Huh?

That is not what i recall. I thought that it was agreed skirmishers looting the camp can freely evade if charged.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:44 am

It has been stated that skirmishers attacking a fortified camp are not in combat and can freely evade. I don't remember reading an authors comment on what happens if skirmishers are attacked while actually looting (but then I'm getting older

).

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:42 am

Here is the answer from the past stream referred to ..

Here's the authors view on this one ... short errata to follow to make sacking only possible with a frontal contact.

1. Troops sacking a camp need a CMT to break off - sacking happens immediately on contact for unfortified camps
2. Troops attempting to sack a fortified camp are locked once they break in, but they are not locked before that.
3. They are not in close combat as defined in the rules glossary - which is a handy way to separate them from other combats as I believe breaking off from a defended wall is very do-able for all troops (have put this little bit onto the stream)
4. They can therefore make normal moves if say they wanted to give up on trying to break in but need to take CMT's as usual for any moves normally requiring them.
5. While troops have their front bases in front edge contact they get a roll to break in (we are going to issue an errata to make it front edge only as this is what we intended).

Cheers

Si

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:01 pm

OK, Si, that is where I got confused about another string mandating front edge contact to sack a camp. Front edge contact is only needed if attempting to sack a fortified camp. Any contact will do to automatically sack an unfortified camp. Right?

Terry G.

shall · Post by **shall** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:40 pm

Exactly.

For an unfortified camp we consdier it very vulnerable and not really involving a fight, so anything touching it will result in a few units breaking off to sack the place. A fortified camp a completely different matter needing proper attention to break in.

Si