My UG of brave French knights, who suffered a base loss at the hands of some crap skirmishers (2 wounds on 2 white dice? No problem!) charge into the enemy's camp, causing 3 wounds, but taking another wound in the process. During melee, knowing that they just need to break the camp to win the game, they put the army commander in combat.

Was this the stupidest move ever? Because here's what happens...

The camp belongs to the active player, so he says: sure, let's fight with the general's file first. After incorporating all of our fingers and a few toes as well, it's decided that the French general's file fights with a red and a yellow, and the overlap fights with a red and a white, while the camp fights back with a black. Yeah, the camp's toast. Game over dude. The enemy has been broken and the game therefore ends immediately.

Or does it?

Heh, look at that black die. It has a wound on it. Fancy that. You were carrying a wound, so that base dies. Oh, and your general was fighting in that file, so I get an immediate KaB test against your general. Sure, whatever. Roll that green dice. I don't care. Because you would have to roll a...

Skull. Crap. Killed my general.

Now, they get an immediate KaB test against the UG. Fortunately nothing else is close, but they then roll a...

Skull. Broke my UG.

Fortunately for the French it didn't break their army, although it was a bit close. (As in French crossbowmen 1 wound away while fighting knights so they are going to break any second now close.)

So, was I correct in doing the immediate KaB tests, or is the immediate end of the game more immediate? Any way to tell from the rules, 'cause I sure don't know how to figure it out.

The camp break is "immediately" the current action (file of combat) is complete. The "immediate" KABs are part of the same action and so are completed before the end of the current action. You did the correct thing.

It does seem to me you got the knightly overlap dice colour wrong. I am guessing the main combat is Superior (+1),Vs Poor (+1), Melee Expert (+1), Fully Armoured (+1) plus General (+1) giving a total of +5 (Red and Yellow) but the overlap does not have the general so would start at +4 (Red and White) but is an overlap and so drops a colour to plain Red.
As an aside the camp would also get 2 overlaps (Yes they overlap around corners and every base width of camp edge fights) in this case they would be sub-Black and so could have no effect but the camp overlaps are often missed.

I was counting the camp as unprotected but the default is protected, so it should have been 2 red and a green since +5 is a red and a green. The referee DQs the French.

So, camps can support around corners? I wouldn't have thought so. The rules read (p146)

"3. To count as a supporting file the file must be...
3.2 Be aligned parallel to the file it is supporting and be facing in the same direction"

Although the camp can fight with both frontages on a corner, surely they are not considered to be facing in the same direction?

See page 175  E.4.3 "....treating all the perimeter as its front but any free frontage can act as supporting files..."

You have failed to quote the bit in brackets "(even if a nominal base has been lost - to keep it neat and simple)" which is a bit relevant as it adds context.

Also the wording is "can act" and not "acts" so is not definitive.

Because of those I don't see that camp frontages acting as supporting files are not bound by the normal requirements for supporting files.

Support around corners? Really? Surely not!  My general policy is never disagree with Steads because he actually READS the rules, but this is powerfully counter-intuitive, to say the least. One would think that having camps as a compete departure from the whole way that overlaps work would be stated more explicitly, but of course I am usually wrong on the rules, so,,,

I also disagree with Stephen's interpretation of what is written.  If umpiring, I would only allow an overlap that would comply with the normal supporting file rules.

Richard

I am happy to let this die. I only had this opinion because there was a note a long while back (that I can no longer find, so maybe I imagined it) that this was the case. I always thought it was weird which is why I brought it up.

QuoteMy UG of brave French knights, who suffered a base loss at the hands of some crap skirmishers (2 wounds on 2 white dice? No problem!) charge into the enemy's camp, causing 3 wounds, but taking another wound in the process. During melee, knowing that they just need to break the camp to win the game, they put the army commander in combat.

.

Ouch that hurts ...

QuoteThe camp belongs to the active player, so he says: sure, let's fight with the general's file first. After incorporating all of our fingers and a few toes as well, it's decided that the French general's file fights with a red and a yellow, and the overlap fights with a red and a white, while the camp fights back with a black. Yeah, the camp's toast. Game over dude. The enemy has been broken and the game therefore ends immediately. Or does it? Heh, look at that black die. It has a wound on it. Fancy that. You were carrying a wound, so that base dies. Oh, and your general was fighting in that file, so I get an immediate KaB test against your general. Sure, whatever. Roll that green dice. I don't care. Because you would have to roll a... Skull. Crap. Killed my general. Now, they get an immediate KaB test against the UG. Fortunately nothing else is close, but they then roll a... Skull. Broke my UG.

Love it what a fine tail of excitement!.  Just to confirm no overlaps around corners is as intended. But yes all correct as they were a bunch of immediate as part of the same combat roll.  Fantastic.

Si