Beasts below.
Chaos! Arguments! The worst parts of GMing!
People, people:
1)Terenos has 6 tactician regiments. That means he has 6 highly competent sub-commanders. We can assume that he made plans in case of treachery, so the troops are still following 'his' orders, as interpreted by his sub-commanders. The only penalty his army will suffer-this battle- from him not leading personally is not receiving his tactics bonus.
2)Tactics, and bonuses to tactics, are highly abstracted. Please think of it this way: if you have the lower tactics score, you are- IC- less capable of doing clever things with your army. You are more susceptible to trickery. Perhaps the DE will make a feint, and you will send your forces surging forwards to counter them, whereupon the rest of his army will sneak out another gate, allowing them to flank and split and whatnot to their hearts desire?
Sure, sure. OOC you think, no, that's stupid, we would never do that. But if you have the lower tactics score, you are stupider than the enemy.
Now, you can argue for and try to set up some sort of tactics bonus for your side. But this would not be a flat bonus- there would be something on the other side of the scales. For example, if you want a tactics bonus from being entrenched, you should receive a strength penalty for being entrenched and thus less willing to put your backs into it and actually attack the enemy. Or something like that, you know? We can argue details if you choose to do this.
3)Speaking of tactics bonuses: you will notice that Taricus has ordered all forces to attack blindly. That is pretty much the worst strategy if you want a tactics bonus.
4)The Arctic Fox cannot just escape, no. But he can be rescued by his troops. It might require a tactic to get him from within your camp, but it can be done.