Blocked retreats

[honestmistake]

Possibly joining the party late here but, wouldn't the original frontage have dictated the direction of retreat? Assuming the Cavalry was a full unit at the start of the combat it would have had 6cm frontage and thus have had no choice but to go back and hit the dwarves sat behind them...

[Dave]

It's not readily apparent from the diagram without all the dimensions. However, you fall back from the most enemies you're touching AFTER casualties are removed. At least that's what's implied, as it doesn't specifically mention to check before that.

[honestmistake]

We've always taken the rules to imply that the direction of retreat is based upon the situation before casualties (though you are right that it doesn't actually make it clear!!!) While I can see a case for working it out after casualties that would mean a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat... we saw this as the main reason to follow the diagram examples in the main rules where no casualties have been removed. This gives a clear & consistent answer every time.

[cjbennett22]

the conclusion of battle is something like this (correct me if I'm wrong and I know there are some rule variations that actually change this drastically):

tally up all hits.
remove casualties
add support where applicable
determine the winner


because the winner is AFTER casualties I think dave is right in using that frontage to determine which direction to fall back.  I believe it is part of the strategy a general can use to pre-determine his troops fallback direction.  Same goes for a general trying to get the most support out of his troops by strategically removing the NON supporting or NON supported infantry stands.

In death you can still achieve a great many things!   

lastly the rulebook talks about a "retreating unit's" direction, a unit doesn't become "retreating" until after support is added up for a final score to determine a victor, and support is after casualties (in most cases), hence my initial comment.

As a dwarf player I have studied these parts of the rules but I am certainly not an expert or have nearly the experience a lot of other players have.  HA!

[cjbennett22]

maybe a better trap?
with the dwarves, I tend to not put anything in combat that doesn't need to be and I put them in the rear for support so instead of line like what is shown in the diagram maybe a column.  Then you can bring in the other flanking unit to the other side and I'm guessing in this case, that line of infantry was blocking the shortest route or even vision of the unit and blocking a charge into the flank to begin with.

Dwarves are very hard in this case,  they open up a whole new area of minute needs within the rules because they are all infantry, as everyone knows.

[Dave]

a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat...

That's a good point. I can't remember a situation like that specifically in a game though. We likely followed the last sentence and let the player decide:

If all stands face the same number of enemy, the player can decide which to use.

[honestmistake]

a lot of cases of stands not actually touching any enemy and thus having no clear direction of retreat...

That's a good point. I can't remember a situation like that specifically in a game though. We likely followed the last sentence and let the player decide:

If all stands face the same number of enemy, the player can decide which to use.

Seems to happen in pretty much evry game we play where one side has an infantry based army. Not so much Chaos and Dwarves I guess, they cost too much to have really big blocks but certainly for Undead, Skaven, Albion and a lot of others. Working out things in the way you suggest would make it much easier to save large blocks when careful casualty selection allows you to move backwards even though originally contacted only on a flank

[cjbennett22]

bring out your dead!!!

that's possibly the best thing I have learned this year with Warmaster, pick the right dead guy to die 

you can kill off the front stand and give your opponent 2cm in their pursuit, possibly bringing them out of LOS of a follow up charge after destruction or even turn them around by removing the correct stands.  it helps when you were the initial charger and you lost and are now getting rolled up on your own turn.  the pursuing stands that CAN move forward MUST move forward.  turn your own flanks inside out and make your enemy come around the inside of your line facing outward.  no follow up charge during that combat phase.

I played my brother a while back in April I think and actually pulled out of a pursuit after killing 2 stands during his turn.  He asked me why I didn't finish him off and I taught him what another round of pursuit would do to my LOS.  Attacked the next turn and got 3 of his units in a reinforced assault for one stand casualty I believe (dwarves vs. high elves).

[Dave]

Seems to happen in pretty much evry game we play where one side has an infantry based army. Not so much Chaos and Dwarves I guess, they cost too much to have really big blocks but certainly for Undead, Skaven, Albion and a lot of others. Working out things in the way you suggest would make it much easier to save large blocks when careful casualty selection allows you to move backwards even though originally contacted only on a flank

It happened in a game last night (easier to remember when you're looking for the situation). I had a cav charge hit a wolf rider in the front (wiping it out) and had boars in corner-to-corner contact. Wtih that contact not counting the boars had the choice of how they retreated, they actually slid in front of may cav.

[cjbennett22]

Ha, that must have been awkward!  silly orks.  Did you "pursue" into the boar riders?  I actually did not know about the corner to corner contact rule until following this thread.

[cjbennett22]

did anyone ever find the magazine #16?  The only thing I can still find is on ebay for 50 bucks!  perfect condition.  LOL

[jchaos79]

I have all the warmaster magazines in paper, what do you need of WM16?

PS: But I have them in my oher house (city), so I could take pictures for xmas.

[Aquahog]

I have it. It confirms that the situation isn't covered by the rules and proposes the following Trial rule:

"Losers that cannot be pursued by any enemy that round will retreat normally. Once they have done so they are considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged. If contacted by enemy pursuing other units they count as a new contact and pursuit bonuses do not apply against them.

Winners that are unable to pursue any of their opponents would normally have the option to stand or fall back at the end of the Combat round. If standing would leave unpursuable enemy in touch they must fall back. They are then considered to have ended combat and are no longer engaged." [WarMag #16 p.43]

[wmchaos2000]

Sounds like the way we have played it as long as i can remember. 

[cjbennett22]

JCHAOS, I was just really curious to read the FAQ/rules clarification section from it.  Thank you.