Movement to sack an undefended camp

Wow, you have certainly covered all the possibilities there Phippsy.
Let’s see what the rules say.

Page 7 paragraph 2:-
“(A City) must be modelled with 1 or 2 gates, through which all elements entering or leaving must pass (unless they are enemy assaulting it).”
(I assume the same applies to Forts)

Page 7 paragraph 4:-
“(A Fort) is left undefended if its garrison vacates it or is destroyed; and can then be moved into and garrisoned by any foot element (except WWg).”
(I assume mounted can pursue into undefended places, but they can't claim the garrison bonus)

Lastly, Pursuit on page 12 says:-
“(a) If the defenders of a city, fort or camp are destroyed in close combat, then one assaulting element immediately moves in.”

So I think the following applies (this is bound to be controversial...everything I say seems to be controversial).
* To enter an undefended place you still need to assault it, but no need to dice as the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
(After all, we players in our overhead spotter plane can see that it’s empty, but do the troops on the ground know this?
As far as they are concerned, the defending enemy could be hiding out of sight, and they still need to erect scaling ladders)

Now for the controversial bit
Threat Zones on page 9 paragraph 8 says:-
“The area 1 BW deep in front of any edge of a WWg, or the front edge of any other element,
or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or garrisoned fort, is its Threat Zone.”

Note that it says “garrisoned fort”, but camps and cities always exert a TZ, whether defended or not.
So technically, as an undefended fort has no TZ, a LH element could make a subsequent move to contact the fort,
then get an automatic victory in the combat phase to enter the place.
Well I don’t care what the rules do or don’t say...I like to use common sense.
And I would not allow anyone using a subsequent move to contact an undefended city, fort or camp.

Oh in that case Phippsy, I’d have the LH moving into contact with the place to
make their assault as normal (i.e. end their move phase with their front-edge
touching the defences).

It isn’t until the combat phase, after they have set up their scaling ladders, or
thrown climbing ropes up over the palisades, or made cautious probes into the
camp, that they discover that there are no defenders to oppose them (thus
gaining automatic entry as if they had successfully vanquished the defenders).

Thanks Andrea - the issue about undefended camps came up a couple of times in DBA tournaments, as I like LH armies, and attacked camps when they did not have elements or dwellers in them. So undefended.

My opponents considered that there should be a combat of my LH against the camp....we got rulings and on both times, tje camp was sacked ultimately by just riding through it..,.

I now always in friendlies or competitions put a camp dweller element in my camps for this very reason....

Whether or not an undefended camp would pose a threat or affect troop movement in real life is sort of speculation, it would open to philosophical debates that I don't really like. It's pretty much subjective and a matter of personal imagination. Your logic should apply to unoccupied forts as well, but it is not the case.
Yet, rules favor your reading. I agree that BUA rules were not playtested fully, I would prefer them reading “or the area within 1 BW of any point of an occupied camp, defended city, or garrisoned fort, is its Threat Zone.” That would solve the mounted issue that applies to cities as well, but not to camps. That's our house rule. Anyway: long live DBA.

You know what?...Andrea and Menacussecundas have got me thinking.

We all prefer rules that are simple, straight forward, and consistent, without exceptions
(and certainly without exceptions to the exceptions!).
So I wish to change my earlier statement.

I now think the BUA TZ rules should be:-
“or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort (even if they are unoccupied), is its Threat Zone.”
There you go...no ifs, no buts, and no exceptions...”one rule to bind them all”.

My rationale for this is that no City, Fort or Camp is ever truly completely abandoned.
After all, when the denizens leave their city, do they take their wives, children and grannies with them?
Of course not...it’s only the fighting manpower of the city that has left.
The rest stay, but are of negligible fighting value, and who’s only effect is to man the walls to make it
look like the city is still occupied (hence they still have a TZ).

Likewise, when the camp followers leave their camp, do they take all their sick and wounded with them?
Of course not...it’s only the fighting manpower of the camp that has left.
A skeleton crew of negligible fighting value is left behind who’s only effect is to man the palisades to make
it look like the camp is still occupied (hence they still have a TZ).

And as for forts...well, if even a numpty like me can think of leaving all the flags flying in order to make it
look like the fort is still occupied, then I’m pretty sure that other leaders throughout history would have
thought of it before me (hence it too still has a TZ).

That’s the TZ situation covered. Now we come to moving into these so called ‘empty’ places.
As I said before, even if undefended, a city, fort and camp is still going to be a movement obstacle.
Anyone assaulting these places will still need to climb the walls and palisades.
So troops should end their move phase in contact with the defences, and only during the combat
phase do they discover the place is undefended, and get an automatic victory to move in.

I don’t care what the rules do or don’t say...
...that’s how I’m going to play it, because it’s logical and makes sense.