|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 4, 2019 10:04:58 GMT
Page 7 paragraph 3 says:- “When a garrison or denizens are destroyed in close combat, any one assaulting enemy element (except elephants or a mobile tower) occupies the city and sacks it until its player has a PIP score of 5 or 6. Prior to that, the sacking element doesn’t get the garrison tactical factor in close combat and can’t be shot at.” This means you can use a City as a trap.Allow your denizens to be destroyed...one enemy element will move in...and they begin to sack the place. Now counter-assault the City in your next bound before the enemy gets to roll their PIPs to stop the sacking. Sacking troops don’t get the defence bonus, and are destroyed if they score less (so it’s like a ‘quick-kill’). And once the City is re-taken, it will no longer be counted as being lost (see “Wining the Battle” on page 12). This is an easy cheesy rule lawyers trick for eliminating enemy elements for no cost to yourself, and one that surely goes against the original intent of the sacking-retaking rules. There are two possible solutions:- (a) when a City is taken, it counts as a permanent loss to yourself, even if recaptured. (many citizens will have been killed, and much damage and pillaging done to the City) --- OR--- (b) when you re-take your captured City, your element is counted as sacking the place. (think of it as hunting-down and routing-out the small separate bands of enemy still inside)Without one of these two possible solutions, players (like myself) will be tempted to use a City as a trap. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Jul 4, 2019 10:57:13 GMT
I am impressed by the devious nature but rule compliance of these rule applications.Could the the possible fixing rule be a combination of the two solutions as both your explanations are equally viable... How about the looters still gain a victory point for taking the city and causing the damage to its defences? This could also desuade a defender as using it as a trap as its loss is still at a cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 4, 2019 13:44:37 GMT
Knowing that, why would the attacker be so dumb as to send an isolated raiding part to attack the town? I have used this tactic to great effect. I learned long ago that unless I can take and support a town, it isn't worth the PIPs and headache of adventuring there. Now what happens if enemy elements start recoiling up against a town? I often find taking a town is a two-sided coin. Fun and worth it if you can get away with it. But in many cases it is a distraction from your true mission: destroy the other guy's army. Discipline, people!  |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jul 4, 2019 19:06:04 GMT
Here was me thinking it was a cunning stratagem. It only works against a player once, they soon start considering such possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 4, 2019 22:16:03 GMT
Oh, if it was a cunning stratagem Keith, I’d have posted it in the “Strategy and Tactics” section. On the other hand, maybe it is...albeit a cheesy one that exploits the rules. If you want to defend a City, keep a group nearby. Anyone sacking a City is vulnerable to counter-assaults (as they won’t get the defence factor and are ‘quick-killed’). But when the defender re-takes the City, they do become the garrison and get the defence factor, and have lost nothing. Of course, it all depends on where the City actually is.If it’s in the invaders table half, defend it with Blades (if you have no Blades, then don’t choose a City). If it’s in your table half, use it as your Camp (and be ready to send a group to re-assault it if need be for a ‘quick-kill’). Should the invader assault it, then fine, their sacking element will very likely be destroyed (unless very, very lucky). Should the invader avoid it, then fine, it’s a safe place for your Camp and acts like an impassable piece of terrain, dominating an entire quarter and forcing the enemy to deploy and fight on a narrow front. Looks like I’ll have to demonstrate it in a tournament to prove my point, like I did with my “Thoughts on Forts”. (Mind you, I don’t like it...
...perhaps because I have empathy, and think that using civilians as decoys in war is morally wrong.  )Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jul 4, 2019 22:38:02 GMT
Stevie, I am well aware how to defend a city, but would prefer that my opponents are not  . The counter assault is indeed very useful. |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 5, 2019 10:17:35 GMT
Incidently, do Denizens get the +4 for garrisoning a city?
Page 7: "DENIZENS of a city are armed civilians initially loyal to the defender, they are not a garrison."
Do you need to be a garrison to go a'garrisoning?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 5, 2019 11:14:08 GMT
Quite right Arnopov...no, Denizens don’t get the city +4 defence bonus.
Apart from the first sentence from page 7 paragraph 3 that you quoted, there is also the “Tactical Factors”:-
“+4 if garrisoning a city or fort; and either in close combat or being shot at.
+2 if camp followers or other foot defending their camp or denizens their city...”
So Blades garrisoning a city have a CF of 5+4.
Denizens defending a city have a CF of 2+2.
(This is good news for my cunning plan, as I want the denizens to be defeated in order to draw the enemy
into sacking the city where they’ll be vulnerable to being ‘quick-killed’ by a counter-assault)
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 5, 2019 11:40:42 GMT
Quite right Arnopov...no, Denizens don’t get the city +4 defence bonus. Apart from the first sentence from page 7 paragraph 3 that you quoted, there is also the “Tactical Factors”:- “+4 if garrisoning a city or fort; and either in close combat or being shot at. +2 if camp followers or other foot defending their camp or denizens their city...” So Blades garrisoning a city have a CF of 5+4. Denizens defending a city have a CF of 2+2. (This is good news for my cunning plan, as I want the denizens to be defeated in order to draw the enemy
into sacking the city where they’ll be vulnerable to being ‘quick-killed’ by a counter-assault)Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 5, 2019 18:07:18 GMT
Be aware that while under enemy sacking, I assume the city no longer exerts its TZ against elements friendly to the sacking forces. That is not clear to me. Don't forget to factor that in to your calcs.
Also, can a Bw element that is sacking a town still shoot out from it? I can't recall.
So let's see - If you roll 5 or 6 PIPs in any bound after you've sacked a city, the sacking element become a garrison (if they choose), AND they still have 5 or 6 PIPs to spend attacking and maneuvering. To be sure cities can be a trap, but the counterattack isn't a total slam-dunk.
As the attacker, I like seeing if I can maneuver the enemy into facing recoils against the walls. But a lot depends on whether you are playing on UK or American standard boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 5, 2019 20:21:01 GMT
Good points Primuspilus...and I’ll try to answer a briefly as I can (which will be a change for me! ) 1. Do cities being sacked exert a Threat Zone? I don’t know, as the rules don’t say. Page 9 paragraph 8 just says “camps, cities and garrisoned forts have a TZ”. I’d be happy to accept your interpretation that sacking troops are too busy pillaging, hence no defence bonus. After all, like in an unoccupied fort, no-one is actually manning the battlements. 2. Can a bow element sacking a city shoot out of it? Ah, this one I do know...page 7 paragraph 3 says “sacking troops cannot shoot or be shot at”. 3. Sacking troops can become the new garrison (if eligible) on a PIP roll of ‘5’ or ‘6’. True...but invaders in their bound move into contact, assault, and (if successful) begin sacking. In the following bound the defender’s can launch their counter-assault. It’s not till the next bound that the invader gets a PIP roll...and then needs a ‘5’ or ‘6’ to stop the sacking. So it’s not a 100% successful (but what is 100% in life, apart from taxes and death).4. Recoiling into walls. See page 12 paragraph 5:- “A recoiling or pushed back element whose rear edge or rear corner meets terrain it cannot enter, a battlefield edge, friends it cannot pass through or push back, an enemy, or a city, fort or camp, (or a city/fort gate - see FAQ) ends its move there. An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead.” By the way, if defender’s are worried about having the PIPs to launch a counter-assault, there is one thing they can do... ...have their elements already in front-edge contact with the other side of their city before the invader assaults. Then the counter-assault will be automatic and free. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 5, 2019 22:49:16 GMT
So now here's the rub: What of the original owner's relief force that reenters the city? It is not entirely clear whether having just advanced after combat into a city in chaos and under sacking, themselves must wait to become a garrison, or if they are immediately considered a garrison. I could see an argument being made that they are too busy mopping up the enemy, snd tripping over terrified, brutalised denizens to immediately man the walls, thus opening themselves up to having the same tactic used against them now, and so on, back and forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 6, 2019 5:18:50 GMT
...and that Primuspilus is exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post:- This is an easy cheesy rule lawyers trick for eliminating enemy elements for no cost to yourself, and one that surely goes against the original intent of the sacking-retaking rules. There are two possible solutions:- (a) when a City is taken, it counts as a permanent loss to yourself, even if recaptured. (many citizens will have been killed, and much damage and pillaging done to the City) --- OR--- (b) when you re-take your captured City, your element is counted as sacking the place. (think of it as hunting-down and routing-out the small bands of enemy still lurking inside)Without one of these two possible solutions, players (like myself) will be tempted to use a City as a trap.  |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 6, 2019 17:02:58 GMT
But the rules don't state what happens upon recapture. I don't see why sacking would not apply each and every time a city is retaken. Lots of mopping and rounding up of factions, no?
|
|
avad
Munifex
Posts: 3
|
Post by avad on Jul 6, 2019 19:17:17 GMT
it should be a time consuming process to remove enemies from a BUA even when they are not garrisoned. they are dispersed between all this urban buildings and obstacles - but so is the attacking force.
with all these massive disadvantages (BUA walls counting as target, no friendly support possible, quick killing) i dont see how this is reflected in the rules. it even seems the oppositve of time consuming: its a execution-ground, potentially drawing people away from the battlefield into the streets and alleys of chaos.
removing the words "their camp" from the rulebook-quote:
“+4 if garrisoning a city or fort; and either in close combat or being shot at.
+2 if camp followers or other foot defending their camp or denizens their city...”
would make plunderers just simple "defenders" as i understand it with my limited english knowledge and give them a +2 on dicerolls just like untrained (but organzized) citizens. without the advantage of emiting a threat zone around the city. i would like that.
|
|
)
.
