Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Unhappy King Charles!» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ungarrisoned Fortresses rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Edward Kendrick
United Kingdom
Redditch
Worcestershire
flag msg tools
I'm learning this game and have a few questions about sieges.

1) An Army moves on to a Fortress. If it has enough brigades to lay siege, can it place a Siege marker immediately at no MP cost?

2) After a Fortress surrenders [14.4], it isn’t stated that the Siege marker is removed - does this have to be done explicitly at the cost of one MP? And if so, can this be done in the present turn, or must it wait until a future turn? Or is it removed automatically?

3) An Army moves on to an ungarrisoned Fortress. It must have enough brigades to lay siege (1, 2 or 3 according to the Fortress level). Assuming this is the case, it places a Siege marker - does the Fortress surrender immediately, without Bombardment, as there is no garrison? [14.2 Garrisons: "If all Brigades of a garrison are removed from a Besieged Fortress, the Fortress Surrenders immediately" - it doesn’t seem that there should be a difference between a fortress which starts empty and one which becomes empty by removal of the garrison.]

These questions arose from an opponent who wanted to move on to an unoccupied fortress, place a Siege marker, obtain an immediate surrender, convert the area (for no MP cost), then march on - which actually made it quicker to convert ungarrisoned fortresses than normal areas.

It would seem more reasonable that placing a Siege marker ends Army movement, but this isn’t explicitly stated and may not be intended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Barbarossa wrote:
1) An Army moves on to a Fortress. If it has enough brigades to lay siege, can it place a Siege marker immediately at no MP cost?

14.2: "A Siege Marker may be placed on any qualifying Army during its Movement or when Activated for Bombardment."
So, yes.

Quote:
2) After a Fortress surrenders [14.4], it isn’t stated that the Siege marker is removed - does this have to be done explicitly at the cost of one MP? And if so, can this be done in the present turn, or must it wait until a future turn? Or is it removed automatically?

It is removed automatically at no cost. I can't find a rule that specifically says this, but common sense dictates you can't siege a fortress you control.

Note that you can only pay 1 MP to remove a Siege marker during movement. An Army activated for Bombardment cannot move.

Quote:
3) An Army moves on to an ungarrisoned Fortress. It must have enough brigades to lay siege (1, 2 or 3 according to the Fortress level). Assuming this is the case, it places a Siege marker - does the Fortress surrender immediately, without Bombardment, as there is no garrison? [14.2 Garrisons: "If all Brigades of a garrison are removed from a Besieged Fortress, the Fortress Surrenders immediately" - it doesn’t seem that there should be a difference between a fortress which starts empty and one which becomes empty by removal of the garrison.]

No, the rule you quote is if a garrison is removed, i.e. a garrison must have existed prior. Ungarrisoned fortresses must be sieged normally.

Quote:
It would seem more reasonable that placing a Siege marker ends Army movement, but this isn’t explicitly stated and may not be intended.

Placing a Siege marker does not explicitly end movement, but since an Army cannot move while it has a Siege marker, it effectively does. I suppose one could place the Siege marker and then immediately pay 1 MP to remove it and keep moving, but I can't think of a single reason why.

The key, as you ave surmised, is that you still have to actually bombard to take control of fortresses that are ungarrisoned.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Scott beat me to the answers:

One thing to remember is that Bombardment (and Assault) is not Movement; it is a separate activation of an Army and does not occur during movement (or is a freebie during Blockade and Siege phase)


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why are everybody else's answers always better than mine......
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
the scrub
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
Barbarossa wrote:
1) An Army moves on to a Fortress. If it has enough brigades to lay siege, can it place a Siege marker immediately at no MP cost?

14.2: "A Siege Marker may be placed on any qualifying Army during its Movement or when Activated for Bombardment."
So, yes.


Sonovagun. We played this wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Randall
Canada
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
Charles Vasey wrote:
Why are everybody else's answers always better than mine......


Don't be sad - they're getting better than mine, too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Kendrick
United Kingdom
Redditch
Worcestershire
flag msg tools
OK, thanks to everyone who has replied. Most of this seems logical and avoids odd effects during the game.

The only thing that appears a bit strange is that a fortress that starts empty (presumably actually with a few troops, represented by the PC marker) needs to be Bombarded, whereas one whose garrison is removed surrenders without any action needed from the besiegers. I think one could rationalise this quite easily - perhaps they forget to shut the gate after they leave ...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Barbarossa wrote:
OK, thanks to everyone who has replied. Most of this seems logical and avoids odd effects during the game.

The only thing that appears a bit strange is that a fortress that starts empty (presumably actually with a few troops, represented by the PC marker) needs to be Bombarded, whereas one whose garrison is removed surrenders without any action needed from the besiegers. I think one could rationalise this quite easily - perhaps they forget to shut the gate after they leave ...


My rationalisation is as follows: I view 17th century warfare as a war of contractors (I own my regiment, but I let the Parliamnent use it). So I reckon a fortress with governor and intrinsic garrison is an efficient organisation that is going to require formal sieging or similar because it is build to survive with small garrisons and carefully stored supplies. [Many fortresses were networks of small strongpoints not a Louvois fortification.] Whereas if the governor admits an army into his fortress its commander will try and "own" the siege, as well as devouring the supplies laid away by the governor. His presence makes the town more assault-proof but more likely to capitulate to losses to the army. It is (after all) not his fortress but it is his army.

It did not seem to me that armies usually allowed themselves to be bottled up in fortresses (though we can all think of exceptions). Any rule that encouraged this needed to be dealt with.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Kendrick
United Kingdom
Redditch
Worcestershire
flag msg tools
That sounds perfectly reasonable - thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.