Dont get any closer or how to retreat properly

[jchaos79]

In a game another question arose. It is just a matter to supervise if we are doing properly:

The situation is that an infantry unit facing an enemy want to get far away of the enemy.

1) if the enemy is 20cm close to the unit, in the initiative phase can move far away 20cm and change his formation.

2) if the enemy is far 20cm to the unit an order must be issue. The order is success, so the unit must turn around (every stand flip 180º, so is a semicircular path 2*3,14*2(radius) / 2 =6cm) then the unit can move 14 cm, but end his movement giving the back to the enemy. If he want to end facing the enemy then another turn around/flip must be done, so another waist of 6cm. In this case the maximum distance to "retreat" or move far the enemy is 8 cm.

Do you guys play this way ? is it right?

[Lex]

Nope,

no NEED to rotate for that move (as IS stated somewhere in the rules    )
order, move back 20 cm.

[jchaos79]

uuuups

[Getlord]

so the unit must turn around (every stand flip 180º, so is a semicircular path 2*3,14*2(radius) / 2 =6cm) then the unit can move 14 cm

I'm pretty sure that the idea and intension of turning around is different. The distance taken into account when turning around should be 2cm and that was the idea. BUT it is not written in the rules. So I would assume maximum sqrt(2^2+4^2)=4,47cm i.e 4,5cm.

It is not about the distance being travelled by each corner of the stand but what was actually covered when we assume going "on the shortest" path. (When you're hunting for the heroes, it is different story.) When I charg to the flank I check the distance along the straight line covered by the most advanced corner of the most advanced stand.

Hmm... it's difficult to write but very easy to show

[Geep]

I don't understand what you're meaning Getlord.

Lex has it right though- I don't think rotating stands is an issue for movement (or wheeling of any kind, though it's been a while since I read the rules). Warmaster movement is more similar to 40k movement than Warhammer Fantasy (pre 8th ed).

[Getlord]

Lex meant something different: you can move backwards without turning at all. Then you have 20cm move regardless of the direction.

I meant only turning around: how much you should deduct from your movement allowance if you turn arond by 180 deg.? According to the rules it would be around 4,5cm, the intention was 2cm (this is what I'm assuming) and some people count even 6cm which is too much in my opinion - against the idea of moving as units. Nothing personal of course.

[Lex]

Lex meant something different: you can move backwards without turning at all. Then you have 20cm move regardless of the direction.

Yup !!

I meant only turning around: how much you should deduct from your movement allowance if you turn arond by 180 deg.? According to the rules it would be around 4,5cm, the intention was 2cm (this is what I'm assuming) and some people count even 6cm which is too much in my opinion - against the idea of moving as units. Nothing personal of course.

Actualy this is real easy even without to much math:
Circumface of circle is 2*pi*radius = 6,5*radius for simplicity
If you TURN on the centre of a stand (turn) then every 90 of the turn would be 1/4th of that, and with am effective radius of 2cm --> 3 cm movement
If you TURN on an outerpoint of a stand (a wheel) then every 90 of the turn would be 1/4th of that, and with am effective radius of 4cm --> 6.5 cm movement (note that I am liberaly loosing fractions !!


Harldy rocket sience

[Getlord]

This exactly what I wanted to bring into dicussion. These are the rules:
As a unit moves, you can rearrange its stands as you wish. Stands must remain touching but can be turned round or arranged into a line, column, or an irregular formation. When each stand is moved, no part of the stand can move further than its permitted maximum movement distance.
Therefore I strongly belive that stand turning around on centre is using 4,5cm not 6cm as you stated. Because the front corner move "no further" than the DIAGONAL of the stand REGARDLESS that you moved it by TURNING AROUND ON CENTRE. "In reality" soldiers just turning around and some of them travelling inside the unit - it is represented by some centimeters, but it is really not important how YOU actually TURNED THE STAND AROUND. You just couldn't turn single soldiers (figures) around on the stand, so you turned around the stand. But any part of the stand never covered more distance than 4,5cm.

If you want displace characters by touching them during turning around than this is different story and you have to calculate every centimeter actually covered by your stands.

This is how I see it. 

[Lex]

Turn around on the centre, as par my example is 3 cm ....., radius is 2cm

Wheeling on a corner would involve moving on the 4cm radius circle

[jchaos79]

OK I get the point, thanks

[Getlord]

Turn around on the centre, as par my example is 3 cm ....., radius is 2cm

Wheeling on a corner would involve moving on the 4cm radius circle

No, turning around (180 deg.) in YOUR example is 2*pi*2cm/2 which is surely not 3cm but 6,28cm.
To be more precise the radius is not 2cm but 2,24cm because it is the half of the diagonal, what multiplied by 3,14 is just 7,0cm!
Very, very long distance as for just turning around in my opinion. That is why I am still trying to discuss it and try to show that it is against the initial idea of the rules.

In my opinion the right distance is the lenght of the diagonal of the stand which is the distance EFFECTIVELY covered by the stand's corner i.e. ~4,5cm. Lex, if you be so kind to take a closer look at it, then we can discuss further. Do we need diagram?

[pw]

For the sake of simplicity, and perhaps because it's never been very important in a game, I'd probably allow turning on the spot for free (i.e. at no movement cost). The final location of the stand is identical to its start point so in my mind it hasn't actually moved. (Can't cannons turn to their rear even if not ordered?)

On the other hand, if it needed to wheel to accompish something (including clipping a character) it's end point is different and the move needs calculating.

When moving WM we tend to think about start and end locations as the most significant rather than the exact details. I think that's close to the spirit of the rules which seem designed to avoid some of the irritations of movement in Warhammer (though those are reduced in the new edition). If a player uses this freedom to achieve extra distance or other nefarious results then they're possibly playing in the wrong spirit.

[jchaos79]

(Can't cannons turn to their rear even if not ordered?)

If a player uses this freedom to achieve extra distance or other nefarious results then they're possibly playing in the wrong spirit.

Absolutly, that is not the spirit,

By the way about cannon, I think cannons must have an order ot turn around or being in combat this turn and in the last phase have a free rotate movement, as the rest of the units.

[Lex]

Turn around on the centre, as par my example is 3 cm ....., radius is 2cm

Wheeling on a corner would involve moving on the 4cm radius circle

No, turning around (180 deg.) in YOUR example is 2*pi*2cm/2 which is surely not 3cm but 6,28cm.

I missquoted myself..... as I initialy stated that each 90 degrees shift was 3 cm, a "turn about" obviously would be 6 

To be more precise the radius is not 2cm but 2,24cm because it is the half of the diagonal, what multiplied by 3,14 is just 7,0cm!
Very, very long distance as for just turning around in my opinion. That is why I am still trying to discuss it and try to show that it is against the initial idea of the rules.

In my opinion the right distance is the lenght of the diagonal of the stand which is the distance EFFECTIVELY covered by the stand's corner i.e. ~4,5cm. Lex, if you be so kind to take a closer look at it, then we can discuss further. Do we need diagram?

No diagram needed for me, but some of our audiance might want one 

I concur with your last statement, but as stated before, I am liberaly rounding down, as in my humble oppinion there should be some loss of movement, but it should not be gamechanging. That said, and in reference to playing ïn the "spirit of the game", the worst case of mishandeling the "I start here, I go there" without actualy breaking down his path into simple vectors and rotation, managed to move his cavalry a full 48 cm.......

[Geep]

For the sake of simplicity, and perhaps because it's never been very important in a game, I'd probably allow turning on the spot for free (i.e. at no movement cost). The final location of the stand is identical to its start point so in my mind it hasn't actually moved. (Can't cannons turn to their rear even if not ordered?)

This is how I've always interpreted the rules for WM. I admit I hardly have any gaming experience in WM, but it seems a lot better to do it the above way then get bogged down in the calculations being done here- I may be good at math, but I don't consider it a fun part of a game and doubt the differences, when both people are using the same rules interpretation, are honestly noteworthy.

When moving WM we tend to think about start and end locations as the most significant rather than the exact details. I think that's close to the spirit of the rules which seem designed to avoid some of the irritations of movement in Warhammer (though those are reduced in the new edition). If a player uses this freedom to achieve extra distance or other nefarious results then they're possibly playing in the wrong spirit.

Another statement I agree with completely.