Supports

[forbes]

The support rules for WM are quite odd, and counter intuitive in many ways. The WM Ancients rules for supports are better.

Some of the strange stuff in WMF
If you win a round of combat your supports are left behind

Supports don't count as fighting so can be shot at and forced back (no-one in our group was aware of this rule)

If you charge from 18.5cm away your infantry can stay in columns, so support from within the unit travels forward. This is perhaps the most arbitrary and strange manipulation of the rules. Rather than moving as close to your enemy before charging, you deliberately hang back a very precise amount, then charge in. This is totally gaming the rules. The flattening out on charge is seen by some of our group as such a huge disadvantage that they always stay back to force charges in column.

Follow-ups into supports sometimes count as just a follow-up other times can count as a new charge.

Basically the WMA support rules would resolve many of the above issues.

[jchaos79]

Supports don't count as fighting so can be shot at and forced back (no-one in our group was aware of this rule)

I do not see that as a drawback this is part of the role of light infantry (as goblins) or light cavalry (wolf riders, kislevite arhcers, pistoliers, etc...) giving assistance to the main charge (cavalry or infantry charge). They do not involucre themselfves in combat but shoot to disrupt enemy lines (negating the supports if the shoot did well).

About the other issues, I feel sorry for your player mate who plays charging at 18.5 cm... he did not understood the game.

I play with fantasy games with WM fantasy rulesets, and I also play historicals battles with WMA rulesets. And I can understand both types of games.

I understand what your are saying, and WMA supports are great. But I do not dislike the WM support system. For me are different ways of representing a melee. But one support system is not better than the other.

I read in other thread that your group do not play WM anymore, was it about the rules? the way your players play or boost the rules? did the interest start to decline when trying to mix rules with WMA? or just lost interest and arise other periods/game systems?

[forbes]

The 18.5cm charge is to overcome the problems of flattening on charging - once we realised that this is what the rules make happen, it seems silly, that if you charge from a precise distance you can make the combat run one way, if you charge from any other distance it happens a different way.

This type of charging has been mentioned fairly often on this forum and others. Yes its cheesy, but its totally within the rules.

As to moving away from WM - its the rules. We still love our 10mm Warmaster armies, and use them lots - we have used Hail Caesar, and more recently Kings of War as rulesets - and are looking at Hail Caesar again. To me HC is the next generation of WM - it removes most of the fiddly bits, does a decent job of balancing infantry vs cavalry, and makes skirmish troops useful.

We haven't played the WMA rules to any great degree.

Shooting at supports - I agree with the rational. What I really have a problem with, with all the support rules is that two stands behind each other are treated very differently dependant if they are from 1 unit or from 2 units.

If the stands are from the same unit then one set of rules apply - if the stand which is in an identical position is from a second unit then a completely different set of rules apply. This is counter intuitive. And causes some of the gaminess.

[Edmund2011]

We haven't played the WMA rules to any great degree.

Be aware that changes some mechanisms WM players are very used to play.

I don't see many problems with WM supports. In fact negating the supports with shooting is a very good tactic to attack brigades (damn wolf-riders!!  ), but you need to get the orders done to put your shooters in position and then do the charge.

Regarding the 18,5cm, yes it is legal to charge with a brigade in column to benefit of the supports. Maybe the rules have a dark spot there, but in WMA you can do the same, and benefit of having up to four different units fighting (each receiving less hits), I guess.

[Lex]

This type of charging has been mentioned fairly often on this forum and others. Yes its cheesy, but its totally within the rules.

Seriously ??  Cheesy?  it is a tactical consideration previous to setting up your charge. It is also something only profiting Infantry units, as they are the only ones that will benefit from being able to maintain support!

Both players are allowed to Mb4M, and I need to find a player yet that wont fiddle about with his placement to optimize his set-up (myself included).

IMO there is little cheese on the platter of WM, there are some weird and wonderful tactical considerations (the Trollslayer BBQ wagon for one, and irregular placement of artillery guards), but their perceived "bonus" is always negated by a malus


being privy to design discussions with Rick, this is not a flaw in the rules but an intentional consideration to force people to think about their battle plans.

Remember the original intention for WM(f) was to model the fast & furious fantasy style combat that is WHFB  in a way that it actually looks like massed clashes on the battlefield.

Read the intro into WM(a) where the intention is to create more "realistic" model that would appease historical gamers also.

[Aquahog]

I don't see many problems with WM supports. In fact negating the supports with shooting is a very good tactic to attack brigades (damn wolf-riders!!  ), but you need to get the orders done to put your shooters in position and then do the charge.

I don't see why you can't do it with a single order. After the charging units are split off the rest of the brigade is free to move where it wants, no?

[Edmund2011]

I don't see why you can't do it with a single order. After the charging units are split off the rest of the brigade is free to move where it wants, no?

Yes, of course, if they are integrated in the same brigade, and within shooting and charge ranges one order is enough.