Art De La Guerre

[Neep]

The rule in question is:

[Neep]

Hehehe. So what happens if it's impetuous foot looting, and they have a target (unlikely to be sure) and you roll a 4-5-6?-) Do they go galivanting off without a command?

[Zoltan]

[quote="KevinD"]1. If a general is in combat and rolls a 1 so can’t issue any orders to have his troops make any moves, can his troops roll to stop looting?

No. A roll to stop looting is explicitly linked to an intention to give orders (P.66, bullet 2). If a General is unable to give orders, ipso fact there can not be a roll to stop looting.

2. If you are looting a camp, roll a 4-6 to stop, but don’t then move them so remain in contact with the camp, are you still looting and need to roll a 4-6 to leave in the future?

Yes. It follows from above that if a unit successfully rolls to stop looting, the general MUST give the unit orders. Simply remaining in contact with the camp ("I order you to do nothing") is NOT giving an order. Who would even think about playing like that during a game? Nobody!

Following a unit successfully rolling to stop looting, a general could give it an order to rally while the unit remains in contact with the camp. Come the unit's next turn - since it remains in contact with the camp - it is still looting. To receive an order this turn (e.g. another attempt to rally or move away) the unit must once again roll to stop looting. It probably pays to move a unit out of contact with the camp upon the first successful roll to stop looting.

[/quote[/i]

[Ramses II]

Zoltan, Lionelrus and I disagree. See above. 

While 2nd bp says that the player must dice to stop looting before issuing an order, it does not specify that the player must issue an order if the unit does stop.
Put another way it specifically does not prohibit the player from dicing to stop looting if there is no  CP available 

So even if the commander cannot issue an order to the looting unit, the player can still dice to stop the unit looting. 

[lionelrus]

[Zoltan]

@Ramses and Lionelrus

So you are saying that the RAW actually means:

1. A unit that is looting the enemy camp may chose to make a (free) die role every turn (until successful) to stop looting.

2. A unit in frontal contact with the enemy camp can not be given an order (e.g. rally, move away, charge new enemy etc) until it has successfully diced to stop looting.

[lionelrus]

[SteveR]

[Ramses II]

I totally disagree. You are arguing to prevent an opponent from possibly gaining some very minor advantage in that rare situation where there may be some minor benefit . 

• Automatically testing does not mean automatically passing.
• Even if the test is passed, the unit is not usually in a position to affect the game.
• Even then, the player may have better things to do with the ‘spare’ CP.  

I do not see the issue with allowing a player to automatically test to stop looting. IMHO this does not constitute a huge problem.

Finally you have an official answer from members of the DT. 
Let’s move on. 

[SteveR]

I don't think it is a huge problem in terms of game impact, but also don't see it as a rare case.

It will happen every time that looting a camp does not end a game and the opponent does not win in their following turn.

That said, if it is the official DT position that free rolls are granted (which was not explicitly clear to me earlier), and it is also the official DT position that no clarification in the rules is needed (which is the separate issue I was addressing) then by all means let's play on.

[lionelrus]

Alors, je reponds en français car mon anglais est trop pauvre. J'ai demandé à Hubert, le plus britannique des français , de donner une réponse. En plus c'est le grand manitou de la DT.

Je comprend l'interprétation de steve sur le 3e paragraphe (bullet) du pillage du camp p 66. Je rappelle la rédaction en anglais: "before giving an order to a unit looting a camp its commander must roll a 4+ on 4D6. If this roll fails, no orders can be given and the unit continues looting the camp that turn".

Steve interprète ceci dans un sens strict, à savoir que le lancer de dé doit avoir lieu pour être suivi d'un ordre, et que, par conséquent, ce lancer de dé n'a pas lieu d'être si il n'est pas, en cas de succès, suivi d'un ordre.
Selon l'interprétation couramment admise, toutefois, il est simplement dit que
Pour arrêter de piller le camp....il faut être en train de piller le camp. Jusque là, le consensus me semble total.
Que le lancer de delooting (or looting off, maybe) doit préceder l'ordre donné à l'unité. Jusque là aussi, rien de conflictuel.
Que le lancer de dé n'entraîne aucune dépense en PC.
Rien ne contraint le joueur à donner un ordre s'il réussit son jet de dé. C'est sur ce point que Steve est en désaccord. Pourtant, il n'est pas formellement écrit que le lancer de dé réussi DOIT être suivi d'un ordre. Rien non plus ne dit que si le jet est réussi et n'est pas suivi d'un ordre, l'unité se remet à piller.

Par conséquent, au tour suivant le pillage du camp qui arrive dés qu'une unité le contacte, on applique la procédure suivante:
Pour chaque unité en contact, on lance un dé et l'unité cesse le pillage sur 4+.
Pour chaque unité ayant cessé de piller, l'unité peut recevoir un ordre si le général dépense les points adéquats. En l'espèce, comme le pillage a cessé, l'unité n'est plus considérée en mêlée, donc est éventuellement sujette à la charge incontrôlée.
Si l'unité ne reçoit pas d'ordre, elle ne se remet pas au pillage et reste disponible pour recevoir un ordre (ou non) au tour suivant.

Merci pour votre attention.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[Mark G Fry]

Surely, this is all semantics guys.

For the Commander to issue a command for a unit to stop looting they need a Command Point.
Nowhere else in the game can a Commander do anything without a Command Point (I am happy to be told otherwise but I cannot find a case - as SteveR states, this is a 'rare' exception, in fact it may be unique).

Therefore - the Commander spends 1 CP (or 2 if the unit is out of Command Range) and rolls a D:6 - and on the appropriate score, the unit will stop looting.
That is the only action that the unit can made that turn (to stop looting).
If the Command roll fails, the unit is still happily looting.

In the next turn, if it has successfully stopped looting, it will be subject to any obligatory charge moves or evade options etc. that it may be forced to comply with
In the players next turn the Commander can spend 1 CP (or 2 or 3 if necessary) to move the unit away from the looted Camp. Or choose to leave the unit where it is, but it is no longer looting (NB: business opportunity here Rafa, we will all now need 'Not Looting' tokens )

If there was more than one unit looting the camp (IMHO) each will need to be ordered separately (even if they are side by side along the long base edge) to stop looting.
I can see a possible argument here that, if 1 unit stops looting it might suggest that as the Camp was already looted by the 1st unit, it now becomes just a piece of terrain and so no 'stop looting' orders are necessary for the other units in contact, but again I think that is making a mockery of the rules.

Surely, it is simple ... ???
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[SteveR]

Lionel my friend, I am not arguing anything at this point. And I appreciate your response (and the existence google translate)

I'm happy to accept that every unit looting a camp gets a free roll to stop every turn and on the turn it succeeds, or any turn subsequent to that, it may be issued an order.

It is also my opinion, in response to Gavin's direct question, that is a significant enough issue to warrant clarification. Not because of game impact but because of frequency.

Put it this way - we have a rule about issuing orders to units looting. But before that rule even comes into play we have to roll - and that rolling will happen (statistically) at least twice as often as a order may be issued. So if the rule about issuing orders is common enough to warrant a rule my opinion is that a clarification of the third bullet on page 66 is needed too.

But my opinions are often unconvincing so if nothing happens to this bullet I will just move on, play correctly, and disseminate the truth as it comes up in games.

[Ramses II]

Thanks Steve. Onwards and upwards as they say. 

Mark, I think you have the process reversed. The player does not spend CP first before testing to stop looting - he tests first and only spends CP when successful (which can be this turn or some subsequent turn).

Further, the commander does not issue an order to stop looting, that is the result of the test. After a successful test, the player can issue any of the relevant orders as usual. 

[Mark G Fry]

Blimey!

It looks like a while bunch of people have been playing this wrong then, for a long time.

But it does all seem at odds with basic game principles to me.
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis