Rules question - rotating on the charge

[Guthwine]

I think thats an interesting topic and I agree with getlord.
I believe pivots and turns do matter especially in a game where movement is a (if not the) deciding factor.

Here is an example, how would you treat this situation? Could B charge A in this case or is it out of range?


Edit: Yes we assume this are 2 cavalry units and the command roll was succesful.

[jchaos79]

Well assuming b and a are cavalry.

B player has given an succesful order.

1-Calculate the distance shorter bewteen B and A. (I think is less than 30 cm corner to corner). So the closer stand of B could charge on A.

2-Move  the closer stand of B and center to center in the flank of A

3-The second stand of B is far away of the battle line (corner to battle line) so this stand and the third could not charge but must end his movement in contact with B at least 1 cm from the battle line.

4- result: only one stand of B could attack (+1 charge in open), and only one stand of A could defend (-1 being flanked).

5- If B had more impacts than A then B can pursuit and the tree stands could fight flanking A.


That is the way we play, please tell me we are doing right  

[Geep]

I'd play it exactly as Jchaos79 describes as well.
Whether it's technically correct or not, this is still the way I'd prefer to play the game.

[Lex]

On a charge where there is no manouvering needed and the distance is as indicated then JC-resolution is OK by me, the last "rotation" to set the stands flush is part of the move.

However !!   it there was an object that needed manouvering AROUND then there is not enough movement to make the charge, even where the units starting and end position are in 30 cm

[Getlord]

The rules are:

When each stand is moved, no part of the stand can move further than its permitted maximum movement distance.
and
Move the closest charging stand into edge to edge contact with the closest visible enemy stand. Place the front edge of the charging stand centre-to-centre against the closest edge of the enemy stand. See Diagram 35.1.

Therefore the charge is (probably) not allowed. When you check how far can you move you have to ALWAYS identify the part of the stand which is covering the biggest distance. Please note that I'm always using - let's call it - VECTORING instead of pivoting in such moves (when there are no obstacles on the way).
The part which is covering the most distance in this charge is the rear right corner.
What you have to do to check if the charge is allowed:

1. Check if the unit can see the enemy etc.
2. Check initial distance to know if it is worth to bother
3. Borrow one ADDITIONAL stand and place it in the position "after charge"
4. Identify the part of the stand which will cover to biggest distance (here it is white spot in the picture attached)
5. Measure the distance between initial position and target position (I do not perform any special pivoting if there is no obstacle) - this  is represented on the picture by the black arrow. The length of this arrow must be less or equal to the movement allowance of the unit.
6. Then move or not.
7. If moved then follow the procedure with other stands.
Please note that this procedure must be used only if we're on the limit with the distance.

[Lex]

Very nicely put and well illustrated !!

[Getlord]

Whether it's technically correct or not, this is still the way I'd prefer to play the game.

I would like to shortly comment this statement. We're in the rules clarification thread, aren't we? I do not exactly see the value in such statements as they are putting the pressure to those who want to analyse the rules and in fact promoting playing style which is against (or "beside") the rules. It is shown as the cool and non-problematic approach to the game. That is great, but I would shift this kind of comments to general discussion thread as it is trying to disencourage us from the pragmatic discussion on the rules. Finally this approach will bring less "coolnes" to our games when two unproblematic persons meet but each of them is playing completly diiferent game...

Do not get me wrong, but in previous thread I also noticed such a comment which intension is I think:
"Guys, let's do not fix something which is not broken. Just play as we think it is right and do not bother with too much discussion bringing only mess and unnecessary details to our games".

I simply do not agree with such approach in the threads devoted to rules clarifications. Would you agree with me Geep?

[pw]

I think my position is close to geep's here (see my comment in the other very similar thread currently running to which Getlord is perhaps referring and, if that's the case, rather misinterpreting). Personally I'm very happy to read these mathematical rules discussions but to exclude those from the discussion who perhaps think that the rules don't demand mathematical precision is perhaps a little unnecessary and sounds rather dismissive (maths-Warmaster certainly fits with a rules-as-written approach to wargaming but it isn't necessarily the only option).

For me the discussion in this thread is illuminating because I simply wouldn't ever have thought about measuring the movement in this way and the diagrams in this thread are very helpful. Getlord's diagram certainly looks like a quick way of solving some potential problems. Knowing that I might encounter players who will want to calculate these things very exactly and that others wont is, to my mind, a useful fact. Checking what expectations players bring to the table is part of the pre-game for me.

[Geep]

I simply do not agree with such approach in the threads devoted to rules clarifications. Would you agree with me Geep?

This is a fair point, and I understand what you mean. I also see a forum as a place to express an opinion though, even in the Rules thread. I did begin my post with a comment which was clear and simple (agreeing with JChaos79). If you don't like my opinion (either on the rules, or the way I view a forum as an open social space) that is fine- I will refrain from expressing a 'cool and non-problematic' opinion in a thread you have created or as a result of a comment you have made.

I find your diagram very interesting Getlord- it definitely helps to clarify your point. Is this the interpretation of the rules you actually play with, and do you often have circumstances like this come up? Do all others in your gaming group also follow this method, or are there other variations as well?

As Pw mentioned, it is interesting to see the different approaches of people to the game.

[CT Yankee]

I play this the same way as Getlord.  No ambiguity involved.

[spiritusXmachina]

Getlord's diagram illustrates perfectly how I would interpret the rule. And yes, imo such occasions happen more often than you would think. Especially when charging, players often tend to underestimate the distances.

[pw]

Of those of you who measure movement as closely as possible for the path of each stand, can I ask how this tends to effect with initiative charges for infantry within games? From the maths around wheeling that I've seen here it looks like charging becomes very difficult at the 20cm extremes (cavalry clearly have an easier time).

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think my perhaps rather 'relaxed' version of movement is less free and easy than my words on here might suggest (we do, for example, take into account the need to get round things etc).  I'm just struggling to read the rules as requiring such mm-accurate measuring but I think that may be because there's a lack of detail about how to measure wheels, 180 degree turns etc. Having just looked at the online version of the rulebook it looks like the 'no part of any stand' is an addition/clarification to the rules that doesn't appear in my printed copy, there's certainly an implication of the need to be a little more precise there.

I've never felt that the tactics of Warmaster (which I think are marvellously interesting) revolve around the minute details of movement but I'll give the 'Getlord' method of charging a go next time we play, it looks like an elegant way of resolving crucial questions of distance if things look tricky.

[Getlord]

Wow, I really, really appreciate your comments and the way you discuss! Great game attracts great people – it seems to be the fact for Warmaster.

I have to admit that my comment was put in controversial way - sorry for that, but it was the intention. The reason behind is that I love this game... Such discussion – which is not initiated by the rules lawyer (as me), but by others - can greatly contribute to overall level of our knowledge about the game, its beauty and actual simplicity.

This is open Forum, every opinion is welcomed especially if put in the proper way – this fact is undisputable. But this movement part is really often played wrong (I'm not afraid to say it), and it might be played right when few facts are considered, I want to really keep the focus in this topic.

Of course in my gaming group not everyone is playing like that – after all we have only two, three rules lawyers – but when we are in the tournament it is really well recognized method of clarifying if the move is allowed. This way of playing exactly according to the rules (while still keeping the spirit of the game) is commonly accepted.

Such situations happens in at least 50% of charges from the long distance, in 99% of advances when you have 10cm of movement (please note that being 10cm from the enemy does not mean you can actually charge him!) etc.

Concerning the mathematics. I started the discussion in previous thread with some calculations done in different way than Lex. But my intension form the very beginning was to show this black arrow. Turning around is just critical example of general rule – but the discussion started in this way and now is going into more general direction. (I am going to come back to initial topic when general approach will be agreed.) There is simply no maths at all in such approach, while still it is really fair solution. When obstacles are on the way two moves are actually done. One to pass the obstacle, the second to finish your move or charge. But still vectoring is involved – just more than once.

Are there other/better interpretations? – in fact I doubt (but still might be wrong) as the rules are saying:
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.
And additional idea is “keep it simple!” So vectoring is recognized as the fastest and fair way of measuring how far the most critical part of each stand moved.

I would like to put more pictures but as this hobby part of my life I am really limited in time. Even to write this post it cost me somehow too much time (unfortunately). But Warmaster and adversaries like you are worth of that. If this discussion is ongoing I will try to prepare few more pictures to finally explain my point.

Thank you once more for all your comments!

[Haranin]

Not sure what the issue is here - carefully measure the longest distence a stand is traveling and ask your opponent if it looks good.

Its a game, not a NASA probe to Mars.

[Geep]

I like the idea of the extra base with a golf tee as described in the related thread (by CT Yankee).

I think movement in this game is important- obviously the most important part of the game. I do see the need for manouvering around obstacles, doing simple wheeling, etc. with a fair degree of accuracy.
I would still allow the charge shown by Guthwine, however, as I feel it is in the spirit of the game and is within acceptable measuring error. I'm sure everyone here has had the experience of bumped tables, models knocked and dice being little cubes of destruction- sometimes it will occur that a perfectly set up volley of fire is somehow out of range, or, as in this case, that charge is now slightly out. Winning a game by my opponent being out in their measurements by a mm or two is not a victory I would be proud of, and I play this game purely for fun (years of playing Warhammer Orcs and Goblins has stripped me of any expectation of victory). As I'm sure you can guess, I have never played in a Warmaster tournament (in fact the only opponents I can find are the ones I lend models to).

If other people find the mm accurate method more fun for them that's fine. If I ever get the chance to play you I'll probably play by your rules- I have no problems being adaptable and think mutual fun should be the main aim of any game.