Slitherine

Hi

I may just be missing the relevant section (ie blind) but I cant find a definition of the size/shape etc of a Camp and/or Baggage be it fortified or otherwise ?

Cheers
Gary

sgtsteiner wrote:Hi

I may just be missing the relevant section (ie blind) but I cant find a definition of the size/shape etc of a Camp and/or Baggage be it fortified or otherwise ?

Cheers
Gary

It is in the base sizes chart in one of the appendixes (?appendix 1)

It is equivalent in size to 6 DBM baggage bases deployed

XXX
XXX.

Any fortifications must be included in this size.

Hi

Thanks

Aarggh! I just did some searching and found this topic, in answer to my dilemma - and it's not the answer I hoped for.

OK, the rules show the size of a supply camp in mm, and say that "it can be fortified if allowed in the army list" - I found that for myself.

Unfortunately, if the fortifications have to be included in the camp size, you can't just use 6DBM baggage elements, then put the fortification elements around them, as you would in DBM. You have to actually model a fortified camp as one piece - and taking into account the depth of the fortifications (ditch and rampart), you can't even squeeze in four tents.

At home, for my Principate Roman, I will continue to use 6 tents (or 5 with a space in front of the Praetorium) plus fortification elements added outside that. But if I tried that in a competition, would anyone object? I think it probably handicaps me in terms of taking up more space, and being easier for attackers to reach. But what's the official verdict?

Since the rulebook isn't explicit on this, it would be easy enough to give a ruling allowing my suggestion, without really requiring any rule changes - especially as the same chart does show an explicit base depth for fortifications, which implies separate bases for those.

120mm by 80mm with fortifications outside is fine and you will not have any comments using that cinfiguration in tournaments.

Explain it when you put it down, as the rules say you must. Move the fortifications out of the way when somebody gets close if you need to measure. I don't think the rules say how fortified camps should be modelled, they just have to be declared as such when deployed, so if you did not put the fortifications on the table people can't complain and would probably prefer to see them.

Thanks for the reassurance, guys.

I confess I hadn't thought of the latter idea - that I could still regard the camp size as just the 6 baggage bases, and regard the extra fortification bases as just 'decorative', while measuring distances from the 'essential' camp. It does get around the issue quite neatly.

Mind you, as the rules don't actually say the fortifications have to be included in the size (it was just an RBS ruling in this thread), I still think it would be a simple matter to reconsider the ruling and say adding them outside is the correct approach, to allow 6 40x40 bases (of tents, or whatever) as the camp.

Still, no problem either way, I guess.

nigelb wrote:Mind you, as the rules don't actually say the fortifications have to be included in the size (it was just an RBS ruling in this thread)

The rules specify the size of the camp. A camp can be unfortified or fortified but it is still the camp. This is important in case some $£$% decides to block up his flank with a camp surrounded by a 6 MU thick zone of concentric fortifications!

However, what has been suggested above is a good workaround.

Fair enough, Richard, I'm not arguing. I'm happy to go with the workaround.

It's just a shame - it's about the only part of the rules which can't be used straight with existing DBM bases. It rather defeats the original point of defining the camp at that size so that an unfortified one can be represented by 6 DBM baggage elements.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nigelb wrote:Mind you, as the rules don't actually say the fortifications have to be included in the size (it was just an RBS ruling in this thread)

The rules specify the size of the camp. A camp can be unfortified or fortified but it is still the camp.

They also specify, in the line immediately above, the depth of fortifications. The statement in that context that the camp 'can be fortified' implies to me that the fortifications are added to the camp. If it is the agreed intention of the authors that they be included in the camp size, then this should probably be noted in the FAQ or in other clarifications.

Best wishes,
Matthew

No need IMO it is clear - unless, of course, you are applying rules from another rule set to it

Is there an issue in Tournament play if the camp is larger than the written size.

For my WOTR english I have been using a JR Miniature painted castle.

<BRIAN>

Ninthplain wrote:Is there an issue in Tournament play if the camp is larger than the written size.

For my WOTR english I have been using a JR Miniature painted castle.

<BRIAN>

You're only handicapping yourself really. I wouldn't object if I was playing you

Ninthplain wrote:Is there an issue in Tournament play if the camp is larger than the written size.

For my WOTR english I have been using a JR Miniature painted castle.

<BRIAN>

I do not think that anyone would be extraordinarily fussed, assuming that: 1) you are not seeking to gain an advantage (for instance by using an overlarge fortified camp to block off a section of the battlefield); or 2) the camp is not overly large. I suspect that the cooler-looking the camp the more tolerant people will be.

One possible solution for tournament play would be to have a normal size placeholder underneath your groovy camp; if/when the precise placement of the camp becomes an issue the castle can be lifted up to reveal the "real" camp.

Marc

nikgaukroger wrote:No need IMO it is clear - unless, of course, you are applying rules from another rule set to it

I don't think one has to be unduly Influenced By Another Ruleset to think that a fortified camp would consist of a camp surrounded by fortifications rather than of fortifications contained in a camp.

Matthew

MCollett wrote:They also specify, in the line immediately above, the depth of fortifications.

The line refers to field fortifications, not camp fortifications. If a reference to separate camp fortifications was intended, I suspect that the authors would have included it in the line for supply camps.

MCollett wrote:The statement in that context that the camp 'can be fortified' implies to me that the fortifications are added to the camp.

With all due respect, I think that we may straying into 'rules lawyer' territory here.

Cheers,
Scott