Slitherine

Hi All,

Had an interesting situation at BMW (on the first game what's more) where my camp was being threatened by the lowly and rebellious non Romanesque Palmyran player. I put one BG of LH in front of the camp (slightly in front so that the other player would have to charge my light horse). When the charge came I evaded and so... this is where the quandry (rules question) lies.

You 'manouver' into camp, not charge. Thus, even though I evaded would he have to stop short and wait for the next turn to manouver into the camp?

I can see the sense in both sides of the argument:

A unit getting ready for a charge lines up and goes 'tally-ho' at the enemy who run away. The unit then 'reforms', it doesn't go 'off a plundering', which it would do in the next turn.

A unit getting read for a charge would continue into the camp and plunder even more viciously.

I see two sides. Any rules law out there?

Ian

There is no rule on this alas. It neither says you can stop nor you go in (as far as I can see).

FWIW I would rule that they pursue into the camp as the more "in character" approach.

Si

shall wrote:There is no rule on this alas. It neither says you can stop nor you go in (as far as I can see).

FWIW I would rule that they pursue into the camp as the more "in character" approach.

Si

Yes, but I can also see the direct opposite.

"Right men, we're going to charge the enemy. There they are... get ready. Remember all those women and children that were murdered by this scum. Lets go get them - CHAAAAARGE"

I kind of can't see them then going 'oh, they're running away. Change of plan, lets go get the camp instead.' It seems a little more in character for them to reform and then engage the camp. I suppose the question is how long this takes - in the sense that is it within the time frame of a turn.

Interesting discussion if nothing else

Ian

You can only declare a charge on a battlegroup. A camp is not a battlegroup.

However, you can make legal charge contact with "an enemy base".

A Base is defined on page 12 as "A rectangle on which model figurines are mounted", and camps appear on the Base Sizes table in appendix 1, so a camp is a base . Therefore you can contact a camp with a charge, if that charge was originally declared on a battlegroup.

A charge target revealed by other troops evading must be a battlegroup. So if a camp is in range after all targets have evaded, you still have to make a VMD roll.

You cannot step forward into a camp (only into a battlegroup).

On P20 it says that an unfortified camp is sacked if an enemy BG ends a move in contact with it. A charge is a move, so a camp would be sacked if a BG charged into contact with it.

QED

Very logical approach in that last reply. It's amazing how "complete" the rules are......just a pity that you have to flick through so many pages picking up relevant bits here and there so often.

Excellent we did indeed cover it and it gives the answer I wanted too - bloomin' marvellous.

Not sure we thought about this specifically but maybe we did.

Si

Something like this came up at the IWF.

Incidental contact with a camp outside of the manuver phase. I think it was pursurers. I invoked the bleeding obvious umpire determination that a unit would still strike the camp if in the course of an otherwise ordinary outcome of action it would hit it. i.e. the only real prohibtion is you do not impact into tha camp...or step forward as Lawrence said.

hazelbark wrote: the only real prohibtion is you do not impact into tha camp...or step forward as Lawrence said.

Yes, but that's the point it would be an impact in my original post.

They charge, I evade, they impact into the camp.

I'm happy either way, I just want to know what the ruling would be.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:

hazelbark wrote: Incidental contact with a camp outside of the manuver phase. I think it was pursurers. I invoked the bleeding obvious umpire determination that a unit would still strike the camp if in the course of an otherwise ordinary outcome of action it would hit it. i.e. the only real prohibtion is you do not impact into tha camp...or step forward as Lawrence said.

Yes, but that's the point it would be an impact in my original post.

They charge, I evade, they impact into the camp.

I'm happy either way, I just want to know what the ruling would be.

Ian

I think Dan is saying he would rule that they impact into the camp. The prohibition is on declaring a charge against a camp and on stepping forward into a camp. He just didn't express it very well.

hazelbark wrote:Something like this came up at the IWF.

Incidental contact with a camp outside of the manuver phase. I think it was pursurers. I invoked the bleeding obvious umpire determination that a unit would still strike the camp if in the course of an otherwise ordinary outcome of action it would hit it. i.e. the only real prohibtion is you do not impact into tha camp...or step forward as Lawrence said.

That was in my game with Roger Taylor. Roger had a broken unit that would (on their next rout move) divert around their camp. I charged the routers with a unit. When it came to routs and pursuits the broken enemy ended up scraping it's flank down the camp so muy guys did the same.

We then debated whether the camp was sacked. It is, because the definition is it's sacked if enemy touch it. The only explicitly stated mechanism to touch it is in movement but there are ways that you can doo so via other routes.

grahambriggs wrote:
We then debated whether the camp was sacked. It is, because the definition is it's sacked if enemy touch it. The only explicitly stated mechanism to touch it is in movement but there are ways that you can doo so via other routes.

I forgot you two were the trouble makers and the details.

Yes if you read the literallist DBx way of reading you have some problems. I believe I ruled that its touched its sacked. Didn't I?

Wasn't there an earlier thread in which one of the authors stated the rule should be the camp is only sacked if frontal (not edge or rear) contact was made with it?

Terry G.

hazelbark wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:
We then debated whether the camp was sacked. It is, because the definition is it's sacked if enemy touch it. The only explicitly stated mechanism to touch it is in movement but there are ways that you can doo so via other routes.

I forgot you two were the trouble makers and the details.

Yes if you read the literallist DBx way of reading you have some problems. I believe I ruled that its touched its sacked. Didn't I?

Yes you did; which I think is correct. However, it was to my advantage....

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Wasn't there an earlier thread in which one of the authors stated the rule should be the camp is only sacked if frontal (not edge or rear) contact was made with it?

Terry G.

I would be ok with that, but that is news to me. And have not seen it ruled that way either. So far contact is contact.

We had a stream where we talked about fortified camps where you need sustained contact, unfortified are just sacked by touching them - effectively contingent of the BG in question have taken the bait and gone off for some rape and pillage.

Nothing has been formally FAQed on it to my knowledge.

Si

hazelbark wrote:

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Wasn't there an earlier thread in which one of the authors stated the rule should be the camp is only sacked if frontal (not edge or rear) contact was made with it?

Terry G.

I would be ok with that, but that is news to me. And have not seen it ruled that way either. So far contact is contact.

I think Si has covered that this was in another context. However, the authors are effectively limited to clarification in this regard. They can't change what a rule actually says.

Let's say we are playing a 25mm game and I have a column of 8 MI moving from left to right toward the left side of the enemy unfortified camp. In my last move, I got just to 1 base width (60mm) away from it. During the next enemy turn, this column is charged in its left flank by an enemy column making left front corner to left front corner contact. My front two stands (each 30mm deep) are contacted and make a normal left turn to face (p56). I survive the Impact Phase and we move on to the enemy Maneuver Phase. Since I am not contacted anywhere else, I choose to reform to face the enemy in contact (p70), ending in a 4x2 line with the right file still in frontal contact with the enemy column. The enemy then expand one file to its right thus bringing my file second from the right into frontal combat and bringing my third file from the right into the combat as an overlap. I survive the Combat Phase and it becomes my turn.

Now, in my Maneuver Phase, I bring my left most file all the way to the right of the line to put it into the combat as an overlap. This process also puts this new overlaping file's flank edge in contact with the enemy camp. Since I have contacted the enemy camp during a Maneuver Phase, I have fulfilled the requirement of the rule on p78. It appears I have sacked the unfortified enemy camp (p88). Since this rule says the camp is "immediately sacked", it appears I get the points for sacking the enemy camp (p37) even if my MI are broken during the Melee Phase of this turn.

Have I got that right?

Thanks, Terry G.

I think Si has covered that this was in another context. However, the authors are effectively limited to clarification in this regard. They can't change what a rule actually says.

Just to expand on this:

• we are always happy to clarify, and indeed wrote the rules with limited legalease knowing this would be necessary and indeed this forum is the primary vehicle for doing so.
  we will only issue a change if something is broken, we won't do it if something is a just a bit improvable but perfectly fine in overall game terms. Please to say we haven't found anything broken yet. We will save such "improvements" for a vs 2.0 one day.

Non of the variants of interpretation on camps really come into the broken category. If you don't want your camp sacking then don't let enemy get so close - frankly wheether within 1mm, touching or riding straight through is a bit of a detail. All it really represents is a unit ro two out of battle group off having a good time at your expense.

Si

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Let's say we are playing a 25mm game and I have a column of 8 MI moving from left to right toward the left side of the enemy unfortified camp. In my last move, I got just to 1 base width (60mm) away from it. During the next enemy turn, this column is charged in its left flank by an enemy column making left front corner to left front corner contact. My front two stands (each 30mm deep) are contacted and make a normal left turn to face (p56). I survive the Impact Phase and we move on to the enemy Maneuver Phase. Since I am not contacted anywhere else, I choose to reform to face the enemy in contact (p70), ending in a 4x2 line with the right file still in frontal contact with the enemy column. The enemy then expand one file to its right thus bringing my file second from the right into frontal combat and bringing my third file from the right into the combat as an overlap. I survive the Combat Phase and it becomes my turn.

Now, in my Maneuver Phase, I bring my left most file all the way to the right of the line to put it into the combat as an overlap. This process also puts this new overlaping file's flank edge in contact with the enemy camp. Since I have contacted the enemy camp during a Maneuver Phase, I have fulfilled the requirement of the rule on p78. It appears I have sacked the unfortified enemy camp (p88). Since this rule says the camp is "immediately sacked", it appears I get the points for sacking the enemy camp (p37) even if my MI are broken during the Melee Phase of this turn.

Have I got that right?

Thanks, Terry G.

yes

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.