PDA

View Full Version : Rules Question: Sallying force attacking or defending?


neldoreth
12-07-2009, 03:44 PM
Hey all,

I have come across a minor issue in the campaign rules... Check out the scenario: If player A has his army within his city walls and is standing a siege against player B, who is the attacker if A sallies forth? It's not as cut and dried as I had hoped... Here's the options:

1) Player A is the defender, since he is defending against a siege in the first place! Neldoreth, what's your problem, it's obvious!?

2) Player A sallies out of a defensive position to attack a well-entrenched siege-works! Obviously player B is the defender, since player A would have to come out of their defenses and march to the enemy's lines to make battle! Come on neldoreth, isn't it obvious?!

3) Sieges and sallying are precarious things... In some cases, player A might gain a defensive position before player B can react, and sometimes not... Ultimately, this is the one case during a campaign where there should be an attacker/defender roll-off as in the one-off type DBA games!

So, given the above scenarios, what does the population say?

Thanks,
n

Bob. (and his dog)
12-07-2009, 06:41 PM
Isn't sallying the same as fighting originally
"If an invaded player decides to give battle, this is fought between the opposing players' field armies, using the standard battle rules. Terrain is chosen by the current owner of the city, but from those types permitted to the original owner at the start of the campaign. If a BUA is used, it represents the city. "

Using standard battle rules.
"Each side dices and adds the army's aggression factor to the score. The side with the lower total is the defender. "

I believe this procedure is used for all invasions. Who is the defender in a particular battle may not be related to whose territory is being invaded. In the 100 Years War, sometimes the French and sometimes the English were the attacker, even though the English were invading France.

Stephen Webb
12-07-2009, 08:19 PM
I agree with Bob.

neldoreth
12-07-2009, 09:09 PM
I always read the part "terrain is chosen by the current owner of the city" to mean that the current owner of the city is defending! But it doesn't say that I guess... So, that means that the current owner chooses the terrain and then the attacker/defender is decided?

Interesting! Thanks for the calrification as well!

n.

John Svensson
12-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Good thing we just started our 1 B.C. Campaign last night..... we used the Neldoreth interpretation of invaded city is by default the defender and chooser of terrain. Now we have to rethink what seemed to be the one campaign rule we thought we had down! :cool John S.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-08-2009, 12:58 PM
The type of terrain has to go with the original owner/army. If a Littoral army captures a city of a Forest army, a waterway does not appear in that region:) It stays Forest.

But the littoral player who now owns the city, sets the battlefield from what is available to the Forest topography, if he goes to meet the next invader. So the Littoral City Defender sets out a Forest terrain. Then for the specific battle, the two players roll for who will be the specific battle defender. So you can get a Littoral defender in a Forest battlefield against a Dry opponent.

It becomes important to know how your particular army works in various battlefields that you must create from topography other than your own.

An irony of the game is that all armies now have a city but not necessarily a BUA. Only Forest cannot have a BUA. So if a Forest army is in its own city, and is attacked and sallies forth, it may not put out a BUA. Nor can any player with any other army that later occupies that city.

neldoreth
12-08-2009, 01:06 PM
Thanks a lot Bob for the clarification on the rules, I think they will help things quite a bit going forward :)

An irony of the game is that all armies now have a city but not necessarily a BUA. Only Forest cannot have a BUA. So if a Forest army is in its own city, and is attacked and sallies forth, it may not put out a BUA. Nor can any player with any other army that later occupies that city.

As for the forest BUA issue, what gives anyway? Why can't forest types have a BUA? This became an issue for me when I couldn't build a BUA for my Early Russians! How can you storm the gates of Novgorod when you can't even fight outside the gates? Incidentally, it was for the Russians that I contrived the full-edge camp concept, but I still haven't built one for them :)

But as far as the campaign goes, I will have to keep closer track of terrain placement and type I think, since my current campaign includes nine players with widely varied terrain.

Thanks again,
n.

ZenBoy
12-10-2009, 02:58 PM
As for the forest BUA issue, what gives anyway? Why can't forest types have a BUA? This became an issue for me when I couldn't build a BUA for my Early Russians! How can you storm the gates of Novgorod when you can't even fight outside the gates? Incidentally, it was for the Russians that I contrived the full-edge camp concept, but I still haven't built one for them :)



I have seen some of your full-edge camps Neldoreth, they are all very sharp looking, and having stuff off of the edge of the game board is an ingenius way to do some great modeling and still have game-legal pieces. Great stuff!

Macbeth
09-30-2010, 02:32 AM
I can't believe I missed this thread when it was first posted :( how embarrassment.

In my group we have always played that any battle against besiegers already in place - be it a sally (defender coming out of the beseiged city) or a relief force (defender or ally moving up from another location to fight the beseigers) would work in the following manner

The beseiger is considered the defender for the purposes of setting terrain - after all, they are already there and so can scout out the best areas to fight.

BUT

They still count as the agressor for the purposes of determining who can send contingents (don't forget that there are a series of rules about who you can assist that depend on war declarations)

Cheers

Rich Gause
09-30-2010, 10:38 AM
I can't believe I missed this thread when it was first posted :( how embarrassment.

In my group we have always played that any battle against besiegers already in place - be it a sally (defender coming out of the beseiged city) or a relief force (defender or ally moving up from another location to fight the beseigers) would work in the following manner

The beseiger is considered the defender for the purposes of setting terrain - after all, they are already there and so can scout out the best areas to fight.

BUT

They still count as the agressor for the purposes of determining who can send contingents (don't forget that there are a series of rules about who you can assist that depend on war declarations)

Cheers

I like this as well. It gives people an incentive to fight and not just let the beseiger lose elements and then counterattack.

winterbadger
09-30-2010, 03:58 PM
For my part, I read "terrain is chosen by the current owner of the city" to say that the current owner of the city is the defender, full stop. And I would consider that always to be the case, whether that player is defending originally or sallying out. Fair notice to those in the Punic Peril campaign, FWIW.

I am also inclined to think that Forest ought to have BUA as an optional terrain type. It's *not* supposed to represent a city, after all, so how "civilised" a people are doesn't seem relevant. Flipping through the army lists, those armies that are Forest seem just as likely, or more, to have "a large palisaded or walled village, a hill fort or walled town or castle" as armies that are Hilly or Steppe or Dry, IMO.