Slitherine

Close Combat is a general term for imapct and melee combat ... page 134. And later ... Impact and Melee combat use the close combat mechanisms.

Si

PS I have a firm view on the answer but would like to confer with RBS and TS on it. Si

Need a resolution fast!

Since this thread came up, I have this perverse desire to assault a Camp in Orb.

Take a medal if you manage it Mike.

Can't say I see a huge amount of game turning issues in this whichever way it goes.

Si

shall wrote:Take a medal if you manage it Mike.

Can't say I see a huge amount of game turning issues in this whichever way it goes.

Si

Unlikely to arise often, but likely to be important when it does arise.

Marc

Well I think if you wanted to justify allowing the move into the camp, remember the camp is not really assaulted when it is unfortified. That is a holdover of other rules. There is a morale penalty for an oppponent getting into your own camp. So I could see allows the orb to enter an unfortified camp as still unsettling for the army that has lost its camp.

Now a fortified camp is a tougher justification.

Unlikely to arise often, but likely to be important when it does arise.

Marc

Not so much important, as a showstopper for 10 minutes while people try to figure it out before giving up.

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

So how about this?


A BG must have at least part of its front edge (not corner) in contact to sack an unfortified camp or assault (roll to sack in the Melee phase) a fortified camp. Close combat does not include sacking, assaulting or looting. Assaulting is voluntary. Looting is mandatory for the BG that sacked the camp until it passes CMT to stop looting or is charged by enemy (it may not be shot at (page 84)).

Mike

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).

All looks good to me Si. And it's consistent with p84 - shooting at a BG attacking a camp but not yet looting it.

Pete

Mike

Your expanded lay version seems fine to me. We will keep it shorter in the interests of less pages of errata.

Si

Excellent. Thanks, authors.

Marc

shall wrote: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

Just out of interest, it seems then (according to the errata) that you can sack baggage whilst in 'orb'. No problem, just trying to nail down all the weirdness at the same time.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:Just out of interest, it seems then (according to the errata) that you can sack baggage whilst in 'orb'. No problem, just trying to nail down all the weirdness at the same time.

Ian

Simon promised a bauble if I can manage to sack a camp in Orb!

shall wrote:Take a medal if you manage it Mike.

Hi All;

Had an interesting FOG game with a unique twist on the sacking of a camp. Terrain deployment allowed for a pocket for a camp in the far corner of the table. The camp was in the open, with plenty of "Difficult" terrain near it. This deploymnt would have been very protective if the enemy were good enough to approach from opposite the side of the table. However, the enemy made a successfull Outflanking March and enterd the board with 2 BG of Cavalry and a Leader within 6 MUs of the camp. The first Cavalry BG enters within 6 MUs in the open adjacent to the enmy camp. According to P. 145 " - Supply camps are assumed to have been sacked, even if fortified."

Does this mean that the CAV BG did not have to pass a CMT as per "STOPPING LOOTING" procedure on p.107 and could continue with a second move?

Since the camps are assumed to have been sacked as per p.145, are they then removed?

If so, then can the second Cavalry BG enter the space where the enemy looted camp was, since the text on page 145 describes this in the past tense?

Thank you;

PGC

pnzr wrote:Does this mean that the CAV BG did not have to pass a CMT as per "STOPPING LOOTING" procedure on p.107 and could continue with a second move?

Since the camps are assumed to have been sacked as per p.145, are they then removed?

If so, then can the second Cavalry BG enter the space where the enemy looted camp was, since the text on page 145 describes this in the past tense?

Thank you;

PGC

Sounds right to me. It's the risk you take by putting the baggage in that position in the first place. I'm not sure about your question about the BG being in that space. My immediate gut feeling would be no, because you have to put the cavalry onto be within 6MU's of them. But I'm saying this without really considering it very well.

Ian

There can't be any looting since there was no BG in contact sacking it. Stressing the wording: it's "assumed to have been sacked" meaning that's already over and done with. Since camps are removed after any looting and there is no looting, the only time it can be removed is immediately upon the trigger event of there being a point of arrival within 6 MU.

I would have added "and removed" to fill out the second line but it would have been deleted in editing as unnecessary.

Then units can move through the former location of the camp.

Mike

_______________________________________________________________________
If I'm not as confused as you are, it's because I haven't been paying attention.

Posted: 03 Apr 2009 20:45
There can't be any looting since there was no BG in contact sacking it. Stressing the wording: it's "assumed to have been sacked" meaning that's already over and done with. Since camps are removed after any looting and there is no looting, the only time it can be removed is immediately upon the trigger event of there being a point of arrival within 6 MU.

I would have added "and removed" to fill out the second line but it would have been deleted in editing as unnecessary.

Then units can move through the former location of the camp.

Mike

And indeed was.

Camp stayson but ios sacked for 2AP. If you cose to contact it you could get it removed by passing a CMT. Might be useful if pjhysically in the way.

Si

shall wrote:Camp stayson but ios sacked for 2AP. If you cose to contact it you could get it removed by passing a CMT. Might be useful if pjhysically in the way.Si

So at least one on-table BG must loot a camp to remove it.

The relevant rule on p107 is that once sacked, battle groups in contact with the camp loot and must test to stop. Also, "If all battle groups looting a camp stop looting, the camp is removed from the table." I was taking all in this case as zero.

It seemed reasonable to conclude that the notional looters have already sacked and looted it.

Probably not worth FAQing though.

Mike

Indeed. Good enough as written.

I think of it as not really sacked then and there, but conceded slowly later for 2AP. Wrecked and removed if you put the effort in.

Not worth an exception IMHO.

Si

Ok, so we can agree being close to the side edge of the gaming table can be very dangerous to your camp or BG. Unexpected flank marches can be devastating, if you are parked too close to "the edge of the world".

This would be consistent with and reinforces the "Threatened Flank" -1 modifier. In the Glossary the modifier is imposed if a BG comes close to any table edge. You may wish to be a little more explicit with this concept in the next version of the rules.

I have seen this in other rules sets. That the very far edges of a battlefield are places where there are many unknowns. These far sides are at the outer reach of the C-n -C's span of control and recon. Commnications is lacking compared to the last hundred years. Due to this, you do not know what is happening when it is so far away, nor could you reaction be transmitted in a timely manner.