Movement after failed order

[Dranask1]

If my understanding of the rules is correct [fingers crossed], then if the shambling dead are positioned thus:





rather than.
 
 
 

Then when the enemy attacks he must maximise his frontage so at worst you get this.
He has three stands in combat so do you.

                 




After the melee lets say the results are.
Undead lose a stand per unit and attacker loses one.

Undead have three supporting stands.


                 




Of course if the attacker manages to get 2 stands removed from each unit of undead then we have only one supporting unit.


If the undead are pushed back, then you now have more stands in combat than the attacker who has also been flanked by his advance.





This is assuming you have avoided a flank charge. 

[Aquahog]

Well, that's assuming you charged with only a single unit against a whole brigade.

[Dranask1]

Well, that's assuming you charged with only a single unit against a whole brigade.

Indeed but I felt you were asking me to explain my comment and tactics.
Also you have assumed the attacker is infantry, cavalry is always more of a concern, hence the tactic and enjoys no support.
Also in my experience many players attack opportunistically with a single infantry unit - initiative and then can fail to command to support or indeed only have one unit.

OFC it is not for me to explain my opponents errors or bad luck, merely my duty to take advantage of it.

[Aquahog]

Ah, no I was merely pointing out that I wouldn't necessarily advance head on into a brigade of skeletons. It would depend on the circumstances.

[Grimnir]

If the undead are pushed back, then you now have more stands in combat than the attacker who has also been flanked by his advance.





This is assuming you have avoided a flank charge. 

I've always thought that if the is in the combat, it still has to retreat even if it's only in corner-to-corner contact. It lost the combat, so it has to retreat.

[Geep]

I'm surprised I didn't see this thread earlier.

I've had exactly the same idea as the OP about a failed order allowing limited movement- and decided on the same restrictions. I was also influenced by Epic Armageddon!

The idea of allowing the General to issue orders to units isn't bad either, but doesn't fix what I see as the problem: Excessive chance.
There is a lot of chance in any wargame, of course, but Warmaster has more than most, since movement (normally taken for granted) can be harshly restricted by bad luck, or a crazy game win can come from excessive good luck- all in just a few rolls.

If an important brigade has been standing in your deployment zone for 2 turns, you can adjust the pace of advance of the moving part of the army and swap your characters so that the general can command those laggards. Once the general kicks them in their butts and makes them move forward, you can swap your characters back.
So there is a mechanism for it. If you're not using it, then the brigade stuck behind is probably not so important.

While good in theory, I've had games where either I or my opponent hasn't moved- at all. Sometimes for multiple turns. I've read battle reports with similar events too. The frustration is too much, and there's nothing you can do about it!

I know the Crown of Command, and to a lesser extent the Orb of Majesty can help here- but they almost seem mandatory for most people, and that's the sign of a problem. It's not right to encourage more people to get hooked on these toys, what's needed is to look at what has caused the addiction.

I've always thought that if the is in the combat, it still has to retreat even if it's only in corner-to-corner contact. It lost the combat, so it has to retreat

Yes, the corner unit retreats as well.

Also, even if they don't retreat, the attacker is NOT flanked. To be flanked the  unit needs it's front edge to be in contact with the flank of  . Corners can be a bit iffy, but in this case it's clear that it's flank against flank.