Sacking Camps and Close Combat Question

[shall]

1. You contact an enemy camp in your manoeuvre phase (p20, p78), necessarily at some point along a BG's front or side edge. (Evaders and routers go around except friendly routers pass through an unfortified camp (p67, p100).)

Correct and contact is defined on page 52 and would apply IMO.

2. You test for a fortified camp in the melee phase. If this remains unsacked you are free to move away if you so desire and can do so.
3. If you have sacked a camp - which happens at contact with an unfortified camp - you are now locked in placed looting it until you pass a joint action phase CMT to break free (at which point the camp is removed from the table and you are free to move/react thereafter).
4. You can be attacked at any time while tring to sack a fortified camp or while looting one and not yet broken free. Normal flanks apply for charges. You can also be shot at while trying to sack a fortified one, but not when looting. So there is a risk to trying to sack a camp while there are powerful enemy troops around - as in reality. Beware doing so just for the 2APs - I have seen someone lose 4APs of troops trying once.
5. If you are turned around by a charge to the rear and fighting a fortiifed camp you would no longer be in contact under the definition on page 52, so I would rule you did not get a roll to try to sack it until you turned around again to recreate contact during a movement phase.

Other campy facts:
* You can be shot at while attacking a fortified camp but not while looting (p84).
* A camp is not a BG (p22) but does prevent second moves (p75).
* Camps can be deployed further in than 10MU if behind field fortifications (which can be 15 MU in if in the central third).

All correct. A fortified camp can be wuite a useful obstacle on the table away from the base edge. Also they can be placed in terrain so nothing to stop a british fortified camp on a steep hill representing a classic hill fort.

Si

[BrianC]

1. You contact an enemy camp in your manoeuvre phase (p20, p78), necessarily at some point along a BG's front or side edge. (Evaders and routers go around except friendly routers pass through an unfortified camp (p67, p100).)

Correct and contact is defined on page 52 and would apply IMO.

2. You test for a fortified camp in the JAP. If this remains unsacked you are free to move away if you so desire and can do so.
3. If you have sacked a camp - which happens at contact with an unfortified camp - you are now locked in placed looting it until you pass a joint action phase CMT to break free (at which point the camp is removed from the table and you are free to move/react thereafter).
4. You can be attacked at any time while tring to sack a fortified camp or while looting one and not yet broken free. Normal flanks apply for charges. You can also be shot at while trying to sack a fortified one, but not when looting. So there is a risk to trying to sack a camp while there are powerful enemy troops around - as in reality. Beware doing so just for the 2APs - I have seen someone lose 4APs of troops trying once.
5. If you are turned around by a charge to the rear and fighting a fortiifed camp you would no longer be in contact under the definition on page 52, so I would rule you did not get a roll to try to sack it until you turned around again to recreate contact during a movement phase.

Other campy facts:
* You can be shot at while attacking a fortified camp but not while looting (p84).
* A camp is not a BG (p22) but does prevent second moves (p75).
* Camps can be deployed further in than 10MU if behind field fortifications (which can be 15 MU in if in the central third).

All correct. A fortified camp can be wuite a useful obstacle on the table away from the base edge. Also they can be placed in terrain so nothing to stop a british fortified camp on a steep hill representing a classic hill fort.

Si

Hey Si,

Are you talking about the Legal Charge Contact section? If so why would it apply? You do not contact a camp and threfore don't charge. You maneuver to contact it. The rules for charging someone is in the Impact Phase is different is it not? If you need to be in frontal combat then the rule on page 88 should have said that, not simply contact as it is too misleading as to what contact means.

I don't mean to continue harping with this but I like to be able to point someone to the rules and say this is why you can or can't do that. Right now I can't do that and it could lead to an argument.

Would this be worthy of being added to a FAQ? The rule is way too loose right now if you ask me.

Thanks

Brian

[philqw78]

You test for a fortified camp in the JAP

A test to sack a fortified camp is in the melee phase.

After it has been sacked they test to stop looting in the JAP. (But do all troops attempting to sack a fortified camp have to test to stop looting or only those that succesfully sacked it)

But testing to stop looting is not the same as evading from a charge if light troops. Since they are not in combat, as no combat takes place, they are not stuck. "Skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy BG's charge unless they are in close combat other than only as an overlap" They would have to CMT to stay there under the same rule. P64

[SirGarnet]

Hmm, so still some questions . . . .

[shall]

A test to sack a fortified camp is in the melee phase.

Correct ... and corrected. Meant that but typed something else.

But testing to stop looting is not the same as evading from a charge if light troops. Since they are not in combat, as no combat takes place, they are not stuck. "Skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy BG's charge unless they are in close combat other than only as an overlap" They would have to CMT to stay there under the same rule. P64

True, but will usually get destroyed as they will not be able to evade through the enemy camp - but not always.

Ont he contact definition Brian, my view is that the page 52 item is general for any move to contact albeit I agree you cannot poiunt to something in the rules with clarity on that. It probably should have been in general movement rules so it covered everything. I am sure we can FAQ it.

Si

[BrianC]

A test to sack a fortified camp is in the melee phase.

Correct ... and corrected. Meant that but typed something else.

But testing to stop looting is not the same as evading from a charge if light troops. Since they are not in combat, as no combat takes place, they are not stuck. "Skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy BG's charge unless they are in close combat other than only as an overlap" They would have to CMT to stay there under the same rule. P64

True, but will usually get destroyed as they will not be able to evade through the enemy camp - but not always.

Ont he contact definition Brian, my view is that the page 52 item is general for any move to contact albeit I agree you cannot poiunt to something in the rules with clarity on that. It probably should have been in general movement rules so it covered everything. I am sure we can FAQ it.

Si

Thanks for the help Si. Honestly I think a FAQ entry would be appropriate because as it is now it can be interpretted as I did. I knew it was cheesy but it seemed like a valid tactic. All the rule needs to say is "Frontal contact" rather than contact. But I'll go with your logic as well, perhaps I'll print off this thread for reference.

I'll assume that sacking a camp or rather attempting to sack a fortified camp is combat and that if you are charged by another BG while sacking that the sack immediately ends until the enemy is dealt with. At which point to resume sacking you must turn around, make frontal contact and begin rolling to sack. Makes more sense

And just to make sure I have the intent down. If a BG is looting a fortified camp and an enemy BG is approaching from the rear. The looting BG cannot turn around as it is busy looting. So if the enemy charges in the impact phase, only then can the looting BG turn around to meet the new attacker and stop looting. It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

Brian

[shall]

And just to make sure I have the intent down. If a BG is looting a fortified camp and an enemy BG is approaching from the rear. The looting BG cannot turn around as it is busy looting. So if the enemy charges in the impact phase, only then can the looting BG turn around to meet the new attacker and stop looting. It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

That's how I have played it the few times it happened. It deliberately makes sacking camps good value if you are in the clear but a bit risky in the middle of a battle.

I will suggest a short FAQ on these issues to Terry and Richard.

Si

[BrianC]

And just to make sure I have the intent down. If a BG is looting a fortified camp and an enemy BG is approaching from the rear. The looting BG cannot turn around as it is busy looting. So if the enemy charges in the impact phase, only then can the looting BG turn around to meet the new attacker and stop looting. It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

That's how I have played it the few times it happened. It deliberately makes sacking camps good value if you are in the clear but a bit risky in the middle of a battle.

I will suggest a short FAQ on these issues to Terry and Richard.

Si

Thanks Si for the FAQ proposal and confirmation. I just needed to make sure I fully understood the meaning and intention of the rule.

From the little experience I have with camps, 1 real game and 1 solo playtest you have a real tactical problem. Even with cavalry. Do you turn to possibly hit the rear or flank of the enemy and help out the rest of the line or do you go for the camp. From what I can see if you go for the camp you probably take that BG out of the fight as it would take too long to rejoin in time. But you have the chance of earning attrition points. I was resistant at first to using camps but I must admit I like the additional ingredient to the tactical mix.

Thanks

Brian

[sagji]

And just to make sure I have the intent down. If a BG is looting a fortified camp and an enemy BG is approaching from the rear. The looting BG cannot turn around as it is busy looting. So if the enemy charges in the impact phase, only then can the looting BG turn around to meet the new attacker and stop looting. It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

Brian

But there is nothing in the rules to support it. The only way to stop looting is to pass a CMT in the JAP. Consider that not all of the BG returns from looting for the battle, and that the remainder goes back to looting afterwards.

EDIT
Or to break contact - but this doesn't need to be "legal contact" as you aren't moving into contact.

[BrianC]

And just to make sure I have the intent down. If a BG is looting a fortified camp and an enemy BG is approaching from the rear. The looting BG cannot turn around as it is busy looting. So if the enemy charges in the impact phase, only then can the looting BG turn around to meet the new attacker and stop looting. It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

Brian

But there is nothing in the rules to support it. The only way to stop looting is to pass a CMT in the JAP. Consider that not all of the BG returns from looting for the battle, and that the remainder goes back to looting afterwards.

EDIT
Or to break contact - but this doesn't need to be "legal contact" as you aren't moving into contact.

I can see the merit in both sides. As there is nothing in the rules to say that you cannot try to sack a camp while in rear edge contact. Can someone give an official reply regarding the stopping of looting as per my last summary where a BG is engaged in combat? I would have thought that combat would automatically stop looting. Otherwise I can just as easily say that if the BG is looting then it should be disordered for combat. And the spiral tightens

Thanks again

Brian

[shall]

It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

Partly. I misread the last bit of yur previous posting Brian.

It turns and fights, probably suffering a DISR drop for being charged in the flank or rear. Its likely to lose and die. If it wins it is still looting a sacked camp, as it hasn't stopped yet. But it is no longer attempting to sack a fortified camp until it turns back around again and attacks the walls again frontally.

Its an abstraction of reality. The reality for a camp neing looted is more like:

• The looting BG is spread out all over the camp having fun.
  When attacked in such a situation they are rather vulnerable and the opportunity to charge them in flank or rear does this in the rules without the need for anything fancy.
  If they get broken then they will likely be detroyed as they cannot rout anywhere, which reflects them getting wiped out and dispersed inside the camp.
  If they win they have fought of the annoying interuption and get on with having fun.

The mechanics don't do this literally but generate the right top down effect. We could have put some nice complciated thing instead with the BG inside the camp disordered and everyone fighting int he camp etc etc etc. But it doesn't need it to get the overall effect and trade-offs.

And one needs to keep a distinction between sacking and looting. The concept of sacking is about breaking into the camp, the concept of looting about what happens thereafter.

Hope that helps

Si

[BrianC]

It will drop 1 cohesion level and turn to face the BG and engage in melee. If it wins it does not have to continue to roll for looting as the just completed battle hastened the looting to be ended. Is that a safe interpretation?

Partly. I misread the last bit of yur previous posting Brian.

It turns and fights, probably suffering a DISR drop for being charged in the flank or rear. Its likely to lose and die. If it wins it is still looting a sacked camp, as it hasn't stopped yet. But it is no longer attempting to sack a fortified camp until it turns back around again and attacks the walls again frontally.

Its an abstraction of reality. The reality for a camp neing looted is more like:

• The looting BG is spread out all over the camp having fun.
  When attacked in such a situation they are rather vulnerable and the opportunity to charge them in flank or rear does this in the rules without the need for anything fancy.
  If they get broken then they will likely be detroyed as they cannot rout anywhere, which reflects them getting wiped out and dispersed inside the camp.
  If they win they have fought of the annoying interuption and get on with having fun.

The mechanics don't do this literally but generate the right top down effect. We could have put some nice complciated thing instead with the BG inside the camp disordered and everyone fighting int he camp etc etc etc. But it doesn't need it to get the overall effect and trade-offs.

And one needs to keep a distinction between sacking and looting. The concept of sacking is about breaking into the camp, the concept of looting about what happens thereafter.

Hope that helps

Si

Thanks as always Si. Your last answer answered all my questions and the philosophy part was the icing on the cake, thank you. I just needed to be exact in knowing the rule and how it was meant to be applied. As is it can be interpreted differently and each would be right in the context of the wording. I'll print this off and add it to my document I use along with the FAQ.

Brian

[shall]

A pleasure

We will probably add a couple of short bits to the next FAQ on it to clarify (assuming RBS and TS agree)

Si