Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Rules Questions => Topic started by: Dark Omen on September 13, 2016, 10:51:36 AM
-
This situation happened yesterday when I was playing a game vs dwarfs.
My cavalry were caught in a trap and were combo charged by two dwarvern units. After casualty removal the stands looked like this;
D-D-D
D D
D D
D C D
D-D-D
D = Dwarf stand, C = Cav stand. Cavalry are facing towards left of diagram.
I was forced to retreat 1 cm from combat, as I had two dwarf Infantry stands to the front and to my left hand side, I chose to retreat from the left hand side.
So I ended up here
D-D-D
D D
D C D
D D
D-D-D
I was 1 cm away from all units except for the unit in front. As I had sufficient room to retreat along the line of retreat, I thought I had escaped for another turn. However the rules seemed to indicate that you had to be 1 cm away from all enemy stands, not just the pursuers. Is this correct?
-
That is correct, the stand was lost in that retreat. If possible try to avoid leaving loosing stands in corners. On the other hand in this case you're pretty much fighting a lost battle anyway. I'd give it up unless I was close to killing a stand.
-
You affectively slid down a unit you were already engaged with? A retreating stand is only destroyed when its retreat is blocked. Your retreat wasn't blocked there. Had you contacted an unengaged enemy stand then it would be destroyed but I'd normally play that another round (see my next post).
Where are you getting the 1cm rule from? That usually has to do with evasion and falling back.
-
I agree with Dave, I play as dwarves and see that stuff a lot. The dwarves in the back of the cavalry couldn't be any closer than the 1mm per any and all rules so sliding to the right along the engaged unit is fine, they would be pursuing and not blocking and in this case, unless its rangers, the combat is ended and the dwarves would need to 3d6 out.
Actually what would then happen if the dwarves wanted to "stand their ground" (being victors) if they are touching in the previously described manner (if they are not rangers)?
-
Ahh, that's a good point. The last few times I played we allowed infantry one round of pursuit against cav when they hit it in the flank. Played that way the flanking dwarf unit would get to pursue and we would allow the dwarves to the cav's front to fight as well.
For those playing it by the book, the dwarves would only be able to stand or fall back. If they stand, they stay right where they are. There's no rule saying they have to be more than 1cm away from the enemy (that only applies when units evade or fall back). If they fall back they would have to end 1cm from any enemy units.
-
After seeing the other comments and having gone through the rule book I take my statement back. Another house rule from the local tournaments it seems.
-
In Wahrsag 16 Q&A is the answer the following trail rule:
Losers that cannot be pursued by any enemy that round will retreat normally. Once the have done so they are considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged. If contacted by enemy pursuing other units that round they count as a new contact and pursuit bonuses di not therefore apply against them.
Winners that are unable to pursue any of their opponents would normally have the option to stand or fall back at the end of the Combat round. If sending aloud leave unpursuabe enemy in touch then they must fall back. They are then considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged.
-
OK, so there you go. The Dwarves the cav slid down would have to fall back.
-
Cool, that was how we played it, I slid away from one unit of dwarfs along the other unit, then pushed my surviving stand 1 cm away from the unit it was touching.
It was the penultimate turn so could have made a difference, however with the cavalry effectively trapped all it did was prolong their death for another turn!
In the end the Empire won on points due to some lucky cannon shots routing the enemy!
-
Cool, that was how we played it, I slid away from one unit of dwarfs along the other unit, then pushed my surviving stand 1 cm away from the unit it was touching.
Your stand wouldn't be the one who moved back. Again, you only have to be outside of 1cm of the enemy when you evade or fall back, not retreat.
The Dwarf unit you were still touching would have had to fallback.
-
where is that q&a located at?
-
Warmaster Magazine, an old printed publication. I wonder if someone ever collated an faq from them?
-
Ole said #16. That's one that I don't have.
-
"In Wahrsag 16 Q&A" was typed so I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a publication I had never heard of or maybe a foreign language name for Warmaster ;)
I have a partial pdf of that magazine issue and it has no Q&A in it :(
just checked scribd.com, not there either ha
-
Sorry that was my spelling correction in german.
I thing we could collect all of the q&a. But some of them would be outdated since we had at least some kind of livingrulebook.
Ole
-
Possibly joining the party late here but, wouldn't the original frontage have dictated the direction of retreat? Assuming the Cavalry was a full unit at the start of the combat it would have had 6cm frontage and thus have had no choice but to go back and hit the dwarves sat behind them...
-
It's not readily apparent from the diagram without all the dimensions. However, you fall back from the most enemies you're touching AFTER casualties are removed. At least that's what's implied, as it doesn't specifically mention to check before that.
-
We've always taken the rules to imply that the direction of retreat is based upon the situation before casualties (though you are right that it doesn't actually make it clear!!!) While I can see a case for working it out after casualties that would mean a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat... we saw this as the main reason to follow the diagram examples in the main rules where no casualties have been removed. This gives a clear & consistent answer every time.
-
the conclusion of battle is something like this (correct me if I'm wrong and I know there are some rule variations that actually change this drastically):
tally up all hits.
remove casualties
add support where applicable
determine the winner
because the winner is AFTER casualties I think dave is right in using that frontage to determine which direction to fall back. I believe it is part of the strategy a general can use to pre-determine his troops fallback direction. Same goes for a general trying to get the most support out of his troops by strategically removing the NON supporting or NON supported infantry stands.
In death you can still achieve a great many things! :)
lastly the rulebook talks about a "retreating unit's" direction, a unit doesn't become "retreating" until after support is added up for a final score to determine a victor, and support is after casualties (in most cases), hence my initial comment.
As a dwarf player I have studied these parts of the rules but I am certainly not an expert or have nearly the experience a lot of other players have. HA!
-
maybe a better trap?
with the dwarves, I tend to not put anything in combat that doesn't need to be and I put them in the rear for support so instead of line like what is shown in the diagram maybe a column. Then you can bring in the other flanking unit to the other side and I'm guessing in this case, that line of infantry was blocking the shortest route or even vision of the unit and blocking a charge into the flank to begin with.
Dwarves are very hard in this case, they open up a whole new area of minute needs within the rules because they are all infantry, as everyone knows.
-
a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat...
That's a good point. I can't remember a situation like that specifically in a game though. We likely followed the last sentence and let the player decide:
If all stands face the same number of enemy, the player can decide which to use.
-
a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat...
That's a good point. I can't remember a situation like that specifically in a game though. We likely followed the last sentence and let the player decide:
If all stands face the same number of enemy, the player can decide which to use.
Seems to happen in pretty much evry game we play where one side has an infantry based army. Not so much Chaos and Dwarves I guess, they cost too much to have really big blocks but certainly for Undead, Skaven, Albion and a lot of others. Working out things in the way you suggest would make it much easier to save large blocks when careful casualty selection allows you to move backwards even though originally contacted only on a flank :(
-
bring out your dead!!!
that's possibly the best thing I have learned this year with Warmaster, pick the right dead guy to die :)
you can kill off the front stand and give your opponent 2cm in their pursuit, possibly bringing them out of LOS of a follow up charge after destruction or even turn them around by removing the correct stands. it helps when you were the initial charger and you lost and are now getting rolled up on your own turn. the pursuing stands that CAN move forward MUST move forward. turn your own flanks inside out and make your enemy come around the inside of your line facing outward. no follow up charge during that combat phase.
I played my brother a while back in April I think and actually pulled out of a pursuit after killing 2 stands during his turn. He asked me why I didn't finish him off and I taught him what another round of pursuit would do to my LOS. Attacked the next turn and got 3 of his units in a reinforced assault for one stand casualty I believe (dwarves vs. high elves).
-
Seems to happen in pretty much evry game we play where one side has an infantry based army. Not so much Chaos and Dwarves I guess, they cost too much to have really big blocks but certainly for Undead, Skaven, Albion and a lot of others. Working out things in the way you suggest would make it much easier to save large blocks when careful casualty selection allows you to move backwards even though originally contacted only on a flank :(
It happened in a game last night (easier to remember when you're looking for the situation). I had a cav charge hit a wolf rider in the front (wiping it out) and had boars in corner-to-corner contact. Wtih that contact not counting the boars had the choice of how they retreated, they actually slid in front of may cav. :P
-
Ha, that must have been awkward! silly orks. Did you "pursue" into the boar riders? I actually did not know about the corner to corner contact rule until following this thread.
-
did anyone ever find the magazine #16? The only thing I can still find is on ebay for 50 bucks! perfect condition. LOL
-
I have all the warmaster magazines in paper, what do you need of WM16?
PS: But I have them in my oher house (city), so I could take pictures for xmas.
-
I have it. It confirms that the situation isn't covered by the rules and proposes the following Trial rule:
"Losers that cannot be pursued by any enemy that round will retreat normally. Once they have done so they are considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged. If contacted by enemy pursuing other units they count as a new contact and pursuit bonuses do not apply against them.
Winners that are unable to pursue any of their opponents would normally have the option to stand or fall back at the end of the Combat round. If standing would leave unpursuable enemy in touch they must fall back. They are then considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged." [WarMag #16 p.43]
-
Sounds like the way we have played it as long as i can remember. 8)
-
JCHAOS, I was just really curious to read the FAQ/rules clarification section from it. Thank you.
-
wmchaos2000: Which one sounds like the way we've always played it? The trial rule, the stands don't die if still in contact or both? I must be getting old...
-
Trial. :)
-
Hi,
may be it sounds scary (also for me as I am rule purist) but I always thougt this clarification from Warmag 16 is very much against the spirit of Warmaster, where taking initiative in small things and benefiting out that decide about final victory. So limiting options for winning side instead of dealing with losing side is just a mistake in my opinion and the rule too quickly put on Warmag paper.
My interpretation for the situation described here was based on the rulebook rule:
"Players may occasionally feel that in the interests of playability a certain leeway is allowable when repositioning units along their line of retreat. This is considered acceptable if both players are in agreement."
So I was always suggesting to let the winning side to do what they want according to the rules, as they are winning and the winning with infantry against cavalry is something demanding for award rather than punisment. Following this assumption and the rulebook rules above I was just shifting remaining retareating cavalry stands 1mm away from the stands which they were supposed to slide along, still allowing winning infantry to freely choose from the options they bravely fought for.
It is more fair and much simpler solution than forcing winning side to do the drive back. 1mm "to the side" is not to much ;) In extreme cases you can move 1mm the winning unit which wants to stand its ground if moving retreating stands would result in destroying them.
My two cents.