Hi, if Ratkin decide to follow the rules in a campaign and pillage and turn everything they encounter into ruins , then should forts be still seen as a fortified position? Should it be defended by the Ratkin with all the bonuses and the enemy needs to lay siege to it or should it be handled as difficult terrain with cover bonus for the Ratkin?
What kind of campaign?
I suppose you could assume they lay waste to much of it, but just enough of the walls remain to allow them to get an edge defending it like normal?
Thank you for your quick reply Fred.
We have started a campaign with some club members. Obviously till now the clashes, if any, are still handled virtually by the GM but when the actual armies of the players clash then we have to wait till our club is open again.
it should come down to the rules and how the GM want to play it. If everything that is over run by the ratkin is ruined for the other players but gives bonuses to the ratkin then I imagine the other players will quickly stop playing.
The campaign structure should be such that the rules are baked in and don’t favour one army or playstyle over another.
What system is the GM using for the campaign?
Fortifications are nt a huge advantage in the COK rules, mostly you need to be tall enough or have siege to cross them, otherwise its hindered. You could say the ruined walls only need ladder or to be Ht 4?
Hi Gerrcinn, thanks for your view on this.
He is using Mighty Empires.
cool, well unless he’s amended any of the rules a razed tile offers no bonuses for anyone, they count as a barren tile and fortifications are ignored by everyone until the following winter when you roll to see if they resurrect the tile.