Stepping forward

[Mbaroni]

Played at the weekend and charged into a unit next to my opponents camp. I could contact the camp by stepping forward but in the stepping forward section it specifies stepping forward into an enemy battle group. Is it legal to step forward to contact an enemy camp?

[ravenflight]

Played at the weekend and charged into a unit next to my opponents camp. I could contact the camp by stepping forward but in the stepping forward section it specifies stepping forward into an enemy battle group. Is it legal to step forward to contact an enemy camp?

Baggage is not a BG - so no.

[davidandlynda]

On the other hand you do now need to declare a charge on the camp so maybe you can
David

[philqw78]

on the other hand the rules were changed so that intercepts could be used to stop people hitting your camp.

[bbotus]

And, the answer is?

[titanu]

..... in the stepping forward section it specifies stepping forward into an enemy battle group.....?

The initial wording says BGs but also on P59 and in the diagram says ' bases' and 'enemy' aswell as BGs. So you could argue both ways.

[titanu]

And, the answer is?

This forum is like consulting a solicitor it is only opinion and never set in stone!

[zoltan]

And, the answer is?

This forum is like consulting a solicitor it is only opinion and never set in stone!

Unlike consulting a solicitor, the cost is relatively modest.

[bbotus]

And, the answer is?

This forum is like consulting a solicitor it is only opinion and never set in stone!

Agreed. There are posts where the authors chime in with intent. They are very helpful.

Page 59 V2 says you step forward to contact a BG (camp is not listed), so that would indicate that you would not step forward into a camp per the RAW. But the guys have listed some good possible reasons why a step forward might be allowed. Guess for now I'll play it that you can't step forward into a camp.

It would seem reasonable to me that you would deal with the active enemy troops before you plunder their camp; but, then, I was never a poor, uneducated soldier in ancient times. I'd guess it happened both ways. Maybe the step forward into the camp is optional (or undrilled only?). If you do, those troops don't get melee dice for overlap and can't be fed into the existing melee unless and until they roll to stop looting in the JAP ?????

[petedalby]

I think it is debatable either way.

But stepping forward into the camp seems reasonable to me.

You now have to charge an enemy camp. So if the chargers could contact an enemy BG and the enemy camp at the same time, it seems reasonable that they would do so.

[bbotus]

I think it is debatable either way.

But stepping forward into the camp seems reasonable to me.

You now have to charge an enemy camp. So if the chargers could contact an enemy BG and the enemy camp at the same time, it seems reasonable that they would do so.

Yes, it is reasonable either way.

How are you going to handle the dice for impact and melee? How will you handle feeding more bases into an existing melee, especially if you have a 4x2 unit and the contact with the enemy BG and Camp is on either end such that the 2 middle files are in overlap positions? And, is it required or optional?

[gozerius]

Impact is straightforward. bases in contact with the enemy BG fight. Conform if possible in maneuver phase, must remain in contact with camp and BG. Feeding bases only possible if the bases do not come from those in contact with camp. Melee is normal, includes all bases in contact with or overlapping enemy BG.

[bbotus]

Very reasonable. And, if the base in contact with the camp is also in overlap to the enemy BG, is it rolling to sack the camp or contributing dice to the melee? Or, if the camp is unprotected, is the base (file) then looting or back to melee without rolling to stop looting in JAP?

[gozerius]

An unfortified camp is immediately sacked on contact. A fortified camp must be successfully sacked in the melee phase. But there is nothing that says a base or file so engaged cannot participate in normal combat. The BG as a whole cannot stop looting and move away until a successful CMT to stop looting is rolled in the JAP.

[bbotus]

But there is nothing that says a base or file so engaged cannot participate in normal combat.

There is also nothing that says you can step forward into the camp as part of a charge. Page 115 does say that until all BGs looting a camp roll to stop looting, the camp stays on the table. To my way of thinking, they are either looting the camp or fighting in melee. You don't get the best of both worlds.

[petedalby]

I think you could get the best of both....

If a BG is level with its own camp, it could be charged by an offset enemy BG that hits both it and the camp. If the camp is unfortified it would be sacked immediately as it has been contacted, but the chargers would still get all of its impact dice.

I think this scenario is unlikely, as is the stepping forward one, and its not fully covered by the rules so go with what both players agree is reasonable, roll a dice or ask an umpire.

[bbotus]

I think this scenario is unlikely, as is the stepping forward one, and its not fully covered by the rules so go with what both players agree is reasonable, roll a dice or ask an umpire.

I agree it is very unlikely. But it was fun to think about and kicking around a few ideas helped me think of the possibilities that need to be considered in making a good ruling.

[batesmotel]

Since it appears that the requirement to charge the camp to loot it was added to allow intercepting the liters, I think it would make more sense for the charger not to be able to step forward to contact the camp. It seems unnecessarily fiddly for the BG defending the camp to have to carefully position itself to prevent the charger from stepping forward, especially If the interceptor is HF or MF.

Chris

[gozerius]

In V 1, a camp was contacted in the maneuver phase. In V 2, Contacting a camp is treated as a charge in the impact phase. To me this means that all the rules pertaining to charges applies to contacting camps, including stepping forward, either into new enemy BGs or alternatively if contacting a BG first, stepping forward into the camp. This is consistent with the terms used when other situations "treated as a charge" are addressed (intercepting a BG in flank or rear, and pursuers contacting new enemy). Since a camp has to be a target of a charge to contact, it stands to reason that all applicable rules pertaining to charge targets applies to the camp as well. With the additional stipulations specific to eligibility to contact a supply camp listed on page 73.
It is illogical that a camp be disqualified from being a charge target by dint of it not being a BG, when the only way to contact a camp is by charging. So if it wasn't eligible to be contacted by a charge how do you contact it?

[bbotus]

It is illogical that a camp be disqualified from being a charge target by dint of it not being a BG, when the only way to contact a camp is by charging. So if it wasn't eligible to be contacted by a charge how do you contact it?

Illogical? It is my understanding that troops would fight pretty hard to defend their camp. Since this is only a simulation, you could say that if a BG intercepts, that is a defense of the camp and you have to defeat that BG before you can break into the camp.

Personally, I think if the authors intended to allow a BG to step forward into a camp, they would have laid down rules for how to treat the bases in the impact and melee. They didn't. That is a pretty big omission if it was intended to be allowed. And, we already have several different ideas on that.

On the other hand, there can be some interesting special scenario/house rules about it.