Optinal Rule: „Partially Denfended Untis“

[Ole]

We had the other day quite a discussion about the wording of this rule. We all agreed that the aim of the rule goes in the right direction.
But there are noticeable problems I would like to write about. Maybe you felt the same or are going to.

Applies for Units that have some of its stands in a defended position but not all of them.

The faint reader may read „some“ as one stand. It is obvious not but not distinct. This way it leave the door wide open for abusing. In the last game we could basically get a line of infantry from one end of the table to the other all being defended. Always on stand in a wood on a hill or a village.
I would like to see a rule that is bullet proof against abuse. Maybe change „some“ to „the majority“ or something.

When such a unit is charged by enemy, to speed things up, the whole target unit counts as defended.

To speed things up it should settle if the hole unit is „in“ or „out“ and why does „in“ only get the benefit "defended" and not the drawback "-1 command"? Why should anybody go „in“ if half "in" is better at the moment.

The charger still gets his charging bonuses.

That is at the moment not possible because the defender can only be defended or in the open, not both.


If the aim is to speed stuff up. If in doubt the rule should be declare the hole unit counts as "in" a terrain or "out" of a terrain with all the benefits and drawback of either side.

I am aware that a unit can be behind a line obstacle that only counts as defended. But the Dense Terrain problem is going to be much more frequent. Don't you think?

What do you think about it?

[honestmistake]

We count a unit as defended (or on dense terrain) if a minimum of 50% of the unit can claim to be in that position. On the subject of defended positions we no longer fight over what counts as the edge of a hill by counting all units on higher ground than the charger as   not being in the open vs. assault, infantry and artillery count as defended vs. missiles if they have the advantage of high ground. Makes things a lot simpler and also seems very logical... Charging uphill is always an issue and shooting uphill really messes with range/power of bows and crossbows!

[Lex]

The "accepted" playtest-group rule  was:

if ANY part of a unit is in a position where it can claim the benefit of terrain (either area terrain OR linear) then the whole unit counts as being. And the whole unit can claim the associated bonus.

if a CHARGING unit can reach part of a target unit that is NOT actually in, or adjacent to the feature, the CHARGERS get to claim the associated bonus for charging in the open.

so no messing about with whole stands, 50% of stands or units etc.....

added benefit is that it stretches the "footprint" of available terrain and already cut down the effectiveness of Heavy Cavalry.

and talking of footprints.......

An alternative version that was play-tested extends an "area" around area-terrain of 10cm and on either side of lineair terrain of 5 cm which is NOT considered " open ground ". The rational behind that being that feature are primarily "indicative of" the local terrain, rather then portraying actual woods etc.

[forbes]

An alternative version that was play-tested extends an "area" around area-terrain of 10cm and on either side of lineair terrain of 5 cm which is NOT considered " open ground ". The rational behind that being that feature are primarily "indicative of" the local terrain, rather then portraying actual woods etc.

Surely it would be simpler to use bigger pieces of terrain (or bases for the terrain). Having invisible terrain around your terrain is plain confusing.

[Ole]

The "accepted" playtest-group rule  was:

if ANY part of a unit is in a position where it can claim the benefit of terrain (either area terrain OR linear) then the whole unit counts as being. And the whole unit can claim the associated bonus.

if a CHARGING unit can reach part of a target unit that is NOT actually in, or adjacent to the feature, the CHARGERS get to claim the associated bonus for charging in the open.

I can see how that would made a easy solution. But only as a house rule in an gentleman environment. Just because any is even worse than some. And could be heavily abused. If we make a rule out of it that's entering the rulebook it should be that a new gaming group, that dives into Warmaster understands the rule and can't abuse it, should it not?

so no messing about with whole stands, 50% of stands or units etc.....

During the actual combat it is not slowing down to much, not much more then fighting two different units. You choose who is hitting who.

During Shooting it is because of the drive back benefit of being defended difficult and needs to be addressed.

Sadly you didn’t write why you choose to use only the benefit and not the drawback? Because I still would say, following the rule, being partially in terrain is now better than being hole in terrain. And that can not be the point, not even circumstantial.

[Aldhick]

Sadly you didn’t write why you choose to use only the benefit and not the drawback? Because I still would say, following the rule, being partially in terrain is now better than being hole in terrain. And that can not be the point, not even circumstantial.

I don't really understand what exactly you mean. You get -1 to your Command even when partially in dense terrain. How is being partially in dense terrain advantageous to being fully in dense terrain?

[Ole]

Ups. Thank you for reminding me.