retreat and destroy

[jchaos79]

Hi,

In our last game happend this situation. If the scarabs (don't need necessarely to be scarabs, could be a regular inf undead unit) won and force the empire unit to retreat 5 cm, for example. Did the unit of empire will be destroy?

we think that as the stand fighting is force to retreat to impassable terrain (the house) all the unit is destroy. Are you agree with this?



What really happen in our game is that the empire infantry destroy easly the scarabs. The question is only for having rules feeback.

[Stomm]

First of all, if enough hits were caused to destroy a stand, the Empire player would be well within their rights to remove the one in front that would otherwise be destroyed anyway. Secondly, that stand has no support, as the stands behind are not 'directly' behind it.

So, those are the questions you didn't ask, now to the one that you did. No the whole unit is not wiped out. Only stands that are forced to retreat into impassable terrain, enemy stands or engaged friendly stands are destroyed. And that is of course assuming that you are treating rather over-scaled houses as impassable terrain, which always seems rather odd to me as a whole village would likely fall under the footprint of one or maybe two Warmaster units...

[Edmund]

Hi Stomm

First of all, if enough hits were caused to destroy a stand, the Empire player would be well within their rights to remove the one in front that would otherwise be destroyed anyway.

I don't think so. Stands should be removed from the back to keep the two stands enemies fighting in touch all the time. The combat is engaged there.

Secondly, that stand has no support, as the stands behind are not 'directly' behind it.

Yes, we didn't count support.

So, those are the questions you didn't ask, now to the one that you did. No the whole unit is not wiped out. Only stands that are forced to retreat into impassable terrain, enemy stands or engaged friendly stands are destroyed. And that is of course assuming that you are treating rather over-scaled houses as impassable terrain, which always seems rather odd to me as a whole village would likely fall under the footprint of one or maybe two Warmaster units...

So, empire stand fighting is destroyed pushed against the house. The scarabs move forward to keep being in touch of the combat (they pursue), and finish touching the enemy and the house. If empire unit is forced to retreat more cms, the scarabs are stopped against the house??

Regarding the footprint and the scale oddity, if you play with little small houses then the figures are oversized  Sometimes we play two little houses being a village, sometimes we represent all the village or part.

In any case, all buildings are impassable in a combat, unless you treat a village as an area generic without specific building models (like is done with woods).

   

[Guthwine]

Stomm is right as far as I know, the player can choose which of the stands he can remove, the only obligation is that it still forms a unit so taking the stand in the middle would be illegal.
But here he can choose between the front and rear stand, so taking the one thats already dead because of the terrain would be the best choice.

[Stomm]

Incidentally, from your picture if you count the building as impassable rather than have urban areas as an area of difficuilt terrain (remember, each stand represents maybe as many as 500 men, maybe even more), it looks like it was a flank charge by the halberdiers onto the scarabs. In which case unless the gap between the scarabs and the impassable terrain was at least 4cm, then it might be an illegal charge in the first instance. I would need to double check the 'charging a gap' rule to be certain though, as it may only be applicable if there were another unit to the right that was being charged but still just about visible...

[Edmund]

Stomm is right as far as I know, the player can choose which of the stands he can remove, the only obligation is that it still forms a unit so taking the stand in the middle would be illegal.
But here he can choose between the front and rear stand, so taking the one thats already dead because of the terrain would be the best choice.

Forget the house for a moment. If you elimate the stand in touch with the enemy.. what happens to the combat? finishes?

I think both units must be in touch during the combat phase. Then loser retrats. Then winner pursues, stays, etc.

If you separate the units combat ends. To keep fighting should be an advance done against the same unit?

[Lex]

If you score enough hits to destroy an enemy stand, and overall enough hits to win the round of combat the following happens:

Loser
- loser takes of A stand from his unit, keep unit consistency rules in mind
- remaining stands of losing unit retreat the distance determined by the CR (Combat Resolution)
- any stands that make contact in conditions that force you to "destoy" stands are taken off
- any stands that make contact in conditions that force another unit to make way, make way, rolling all appropriate "confusion" rolls

Winner
- determine what you WANT to do, remember that you have options and in most cases are NOT forced to pursue !
- IF you decide to pursue, then stands in contact with the enemy during previous round of combat MUST move direct forward to kee in contact. Note that: you combat bonus in the next round is determined by the distance derived from CR (^^), NOT the distance actualy moved by your stands !!
- other standsmove into contact, using pursuit rules


FIGHT NEXT ROUND OF COMBAT

[Edmund]

All much clearer now for me.

the enemy during previous round of combat MUST move direct forward to kee in contact. Note that: you combat bonus in the next round is determined by the distance derived from CR (^^), NOT the distance actualy moved by your stands !!

I was trying to apply the combat bonus based on the real distance moved in all the combats, that was forcing me to keep in touch both fighting units, to measure it on the table.

And also, must move direct forward in the pursuit.

Thanks!

[jchaos79]

How interesting is becoming this thread...

So If I understand well, you are not force to eliminate the stands "not in contact with enemy"... as the comments above and the rulebook says (pag 32, casualities: "Stands which are not touching an enemy can be removed [...]".

Then the following situation is legal?, and the blue unit can escape from combat, choosing to lose the enemy contact-stand forcing a "non touching situation" when red tries to pursuit forward.
It seems to me... that it is legal, do you think the same?

(Red cavalry)
(blue infantry)

[Lex]

How interesting is becoming this thread...

So If I understand well, you are not force to eliminate the stands "not in contact with enemy"... as the comments above and the rulebook says (pag 32, casualities: "Stands which are not touching an enemy can be removed [...]".

As long as unit coherncy rule is followed

Then the following situation is legal?, and the blue unit can escape from combat, choosing to lose the enemy contact-stand forcing a "non touching situation" when red tries to pursuit forward.
It seems to me... that it is legal, do you think the same?

Nope, srry, the rule is that stands that CAN move directly forward back into contact MUST do so, but in this case they will follow step 2 of pursuit, stnands that can NOT make contact moving directly forward move into contac with (nearest) enemy edge.....
and in this case that would be the FRON edge of blue-left and you place other stands adjacent from there, however, remember there is NO obligation to "maximize" frontage on pursuit AND the actual move distance of a pursuit is NOT measured !

[jchaos79]

Thanks for your help, Lex!

I found very intersting this section of the forum, to clarify situations and talk about rules

[Carrington]

First of all, if enough hits were caused to destroy a stand, the Empire player would be well within their rights to remove the one in front that would otherwise be destroyed anyway. Secondly, that stand has no support, as the stands behind are not 'directly' behind it.

So, those are the questions you didn't ask, now to the one that you did. No the whole unit is not wiped out. Only stands that are forced to retreat into impassable terrain, enemy stands or engaged friendly stands are destroyed. And that is of course assuming that you are treating rather over-scaled houses as impassable terrain, which always seems rather odd to me as a whole village would likely fall under the footprint of one or maybe two Warmaster units...

One interesting issue here, though -- which stand he chooses to remove might actually determine who won or lost the combat -- it's one of the differences between WMf and WMa that in WMf the support bonus is dependent on the contacting stand remaining when support is determined.

I.e. if the empire were to remove the back stand from his unit, he could add +1 to his combat total because his second stand could support the stand in contact.  OTOH, were he to remove the stand in contact, his second stand would be unable to provide support to the combat... and the empire would retreat an extra CM.

[Stomm]

First of all, if enough hits were caused to destroy a stand, the Empire player would be well within their rights to remove the one in front that would otherwise be destroyed anyway. Secondly, that stand has no support, as the stands behind are not 'directly' behind it.

So, those are the questions you didn't ask, now to the one that you did. No the whole unit is not wiped out. Only stands that are forced to retreat into impassable terrain, enemy stands or engaged friendly stands are destroyed. And that is of course assuming that you are treating rather over-scaled houses as impassable terrain, which always seems rather odd to me as a whole village would likely fall under the footprint of one or maybe two Warmaster units...

One interesting issue here, though -- which stand he chooses to remove might actually determine who won or lost the combat -- it's one of the differences between WMf and WMa that in WMf the support bonus is dependent on the contacting stand remaining when support is determined.

I.e. if the empire were to remove the back stand from his unit, he could add +1 to his combat total because his second stand could support the stand in contact.  OTOH, were he to remove the stand in contact, his second stand would be unable to provide support to the combat... and the empire would retreat an extra CM.

Actually in the example given, which stand is removed would have no impact on support at all as the rear stands are not directly behind the stand in combat. Or to be more precise, the stand immediately behind is not directly behind. A much more sensible formation to adopt in such a situation is that of a line, as for starters you might get all three stands into combat, and then those that aren't can support from the side...



But more generally when a unit is in a regular collumn formation then yes, it can often be a difficuilt decision as to which stand to remove due to support considerations. Equally fighting in supporting lines does not give you this option, but it can be a useful formation to adopt when you have poor quality infantry as it allows you to reduce the number of units that you will lose in any one engagement to two or three, rather than an entire brigade of four, and maybe some more on top of that...