Art De La Guerre

[Ramses II]

I trust you will explain the error of their ways. 

[Zoltan]

Yes Lionel's explanation (using Google Translate) was very helpful, thank you.

I think the hang-up some of us have been having is that the plain reading of the English of bullet 3 on p.66 DOES appear to link a roll to stop looting to an intention to give (CP consuming) orders:

If you want to give orders to a looter, first successfully role for it to stop looting.

We now have this "state" of an ex-looter sitting in touch with the looted camp, perhaps for several turns because no orders are issued.

[Neep]

The problem is here:

Pour chaque unité en contact, on lance un dé et l'unité cesse le pillage sur 4+.

The (English translation of the) rules don't say this. They say looting continues if the roll fails. Thus we are stuck with the implication that some combination of roll and order stops looting.
Zoltan's simple, straightforward rewording is exactly what we would expect if the die roll stops the looting. Since the rules are instead convoluted the logical assumption is that they are implying something else - for example, that the order stops the looting, and the die roll may stop the order. Therefore the rules are inadequate and this should be rectified.

BTW please make sure to say either:
on doit lancer un dé
or
on peut lancer un dé
when you issue the ruling. There are tactical reasons one might want to keep looting. (Since I assume you cannot be shot at.)

[SteveR]

To my mind the most significant impact of playing it this way is that a unit in contact with a camp can, without expending any CP, be no longer looting.

So if charged it may evade or if it stands it will not take a cohesion hit from fighting in multiple directions. Makes sacking a camp less dangerous.

It a decent number of cases it seemed to me to be trading two units lost (the camp) for a single unit lost (the sacker)

[Neep]

I don't think that's right, Steve. The unit cannot evade as the looted camp is impassible. Nor is it subject to multiple attack (by one attacker) as the camp never attacks, just "defends".

[SteveR]

[Neep]

A camp can be 1-2UD on one side and 2-3 on the other. But you are right, often you could evade.

[Andy Fyfe]

[Andy Fyfe]

[Ramses II]

[KevinD]

If I had a vote, I would vote to include this in the errata because, as this thread shows, there is a lot of uncertainty over this issue.

Maybe not an errata per se, but certainly something that is ambiguous.

[Neep]

Over on the Facebook group, there is a question about whether you can target LI in front of heavy troops and avoid continuing the charge into the heavies beyond the minimum charge distance. This is plainly in the rules but apparently confused both a player and the referee.
May I gently suggest more attention to polishing the sticking points, both large and small, might encourage more trust that they mean what they say.

[Zoltan]

Following up on (the Google Translate version of) part of Lionel's earlier reply:

"Therefore, on the turn following the pillaging of the camp, which occurs as soon as a unit contacts it, the following procedure applies:
For each unit in contact, a die is rolled, and the unit stops pillaging on a 4+."

1. Is it compulsory for every looting unit to dice to stop looting at the first available opportunity?

2. Why would you want to test for a unit to stop looting if you were NOT then going to give it an order?
- simply to "bank" non-looting units to preserve flexibility to giving them an order in a future turn?
- perhaps the Commander has insufficient CP this turn (apropos Kevin's OP)?

[Neep]

Note that it's Lionel's post, but Hubert's words.

Certainly, if you anticipate moving the looters next turn, you want to roll this turn - it's the difference between 50% and 75% availability.

If your heavy troop looter has one hit left, and there are enemy missile LI hovering about, you might want to remain looting. The LI cannot melee you, but might collect points shooting you. Which presumably they cannot do when you are "in melee" looting.

[Ramses II]

Spot on Zoltan. Stopping a unit from looting prepares it to act some time later in this turn or the next. As Neep says, there may be reasons why you may want to continue looting. 

The DT has given an official answer. 

What more do you need ???