Options against a unit in a triangular formation.

[Toothpick]

Hi,

As can be seen in the attached picture, 2 units of Glade Guard (GG) are each setup in a triangular formation.

What are the implications for the Glade Guard?
A. Are they in regular or irregular formation?
B. Can all 3 stands in a unit stand and shoot?
C. Can all 3 stands shoot normally in the shooting phase?

What are the implications for a unit charging one of these GG units to the front?
A. Do the charging unit stands form a battle line against the single GG stand to the front?
B. Are all wounds inflicted on the GG allocated soley against the front stand?

Thanks in advance,
Shane

[Clawlessdragon]

Grin :: yes those are my Glade Guard, I forgot about this last week. I am also interested to see what others think of this formation. To get the ball rolling this is my take....

What are the implications for the Glade Guard?
A. Are they in regular or irregular formation? = irregular formation, half move, can not be supported (until the front stand is removed, then the 2 in the rear are in regular)
B. Can all 3 stands in a unit stand and shoot? = yes, as more than 1cm of the front edge is visible. But, if charged from an angle, you could argue one of the rear stands could not see. But you can shoot at any point of the charge, so when contact is made, that rear stand gets it shot... so yes, all 3 stand and shoot.
C. Can all 3 stands shoot normally in the shooting phase? = yes, but limited by range and line of sight of each stand.

What are the implications for a unit charging one of these GG units to the front?
A. Do the charging unit stands form a battle line against the single GG stand to the front? = I would say yes, which is bad news for the archers, as that's 3 stands attacking the 1 to the front. However, in the example above, that would put one of the charging stands touching corner to corner with the other glade guard, triggering them to stand and shoot. There could be an argument that the chargers match the "V" formation in order to maximise 3 stands vs 3stands?
B. Are all wounds inflicted on the GG allocated soley against the front stand? = nope, wounds are against the whole unit.

[Ole]

Irregular Formation

For shooting needs to be the wohle front Edge visible

[Clawlessdragon]

Thanks for the reply.
I've had another look, and believe to 'see' a target, you have to draw line of sight from its front base edge, to the targets base. (P27) I thought you had to have at least 1cm unobsured, but this suggests as long as there is some base visible, you can draw LOS from it. ..
.. my 1cm rule came from " unable to contact centr-to-centre" for chargers, if there is less than 1cm of exposed edge then the stand is not an eligible target because it is blocked.
In my opinion it would be good to apply that rule for shooters too, to stop silly formations where say only a few mm's is showing.. which could lead to arguments, is that unit regular or irregular?
However
Page 38 - irregular formations.... states it might not be possible to form a conventional battle line. In this case, the first base is placed in the standard way, the remaining charging stands are placed in a line but staggered to follow the shape of the stands presented by the enemy unit. So in the example above, the chargers would follow the V shape and make contact with all 3 stands. Which I think would make the chargers irregular, perhaps they would not benefit from support either?
One for the WMR committee to discuss?

[Toothpick]

For shooting needs to be the wohle front Edge visible

Hi Ole,
Could you please let me know where in the WMR rule book it says this?
Many thanks,
Shane

[Aldhick]

For shooting needs to be the wohle front Edge visible

Hi Ole,
Could you please let me know where in the WMR rule book it says this?
Many thanks,
Shane

p. 27

A stand must be able to see its target to shoot at it. It is
assumed to be able to see if an unobscured line of sight
can be drawn from its front base edge to the target’s
base. Sight is obscured by interposing terrain (other
than low terrain features such as low obstacles,
streams/rivers, marshes), other units, other stands
from the shooting unit or any features that, in reality,
would make it impractical to see or shoot. See
Diagram 27.1.

[Aldhick]

Clawlessdragon: It's quite simple. If the stand positioned behind another is positioned so that it can shoot (draw a line from its front edge to the enemy stand) than the unit cannot be in regular formation.

[Hammerskelp]

"unobscured line of sight can be drawn from its front base edge to the target’s base"

If anything is in  the way, such as a friendly stand partly in front, then the front base edge doesn't have line of sight. 

If it had said "any part of its front base edge" then all three stands could shoot. 

In the triangle formation, only the first stand can shoot.

[Toothpick]

My thanks to Hammerskelp and Aldhick for sorting this one out.
No more triangular shenanegans for you Justin! ;-)

[Clawlessdragon]

Not so fast  , that same paragraph is interpreted differently (as are other rules) which is why it is great to have a forum like this and get other views.
having a look through warmaster mag 8... pgs 42 & 43 it cover this exactly.. pictures are often clearer so I took a quick scan.

[Hammerskelp]

Clawlessdragon,
many thanks for posting the scans.
That's pretty clear.
This runs exactly contrary to how I was taught.    Just goes to show.
Since I've now passed-on how I was taught, I need to revisit this with the players in my group.
I'll echo Clawlessdragon's praise that it's great to have a forum like this. 

BTW: While searching, I found another similar voicing of the ruling on t'internet  under the heading "All answers by Rick Priestley, Warmaster Game Designer"

Q: Can a stand shoot if part of its frontage is blocked by a friendly stand, or if only a part of its frontage can trace a line of sight to a target.

A: A unit can shoot so long as it can ‘see’ the target from any point along its own front edge (or all round in the case of some units). So, a stand does not need to trace a line of sight from its entire frontage only from a point on the frontage (p25).

[forbes]

p. 27

A stand must be able to see its target to shoot at it. It is
assumed to be able to see if an unobscured line of sight
can be drawn from its front base edge to the target’s
base. Sight is obscured by interposing terrain (other
than low terrain features such as low obstacles,
streams/rivers, marshes), other units, other stands
from the shooting unit or any features that, in reality,
would make it impractical to see or shoot. See
Diagram 27.1.

To me this has always meant draw a line from a single point on the shooter's front base edge, to a point on the target unit's base. It is a line, so it only goes from a single point.
The drawings back this up.
Therefore irregular formations with overlaps can shoot.

There is nothing I have seen in WM to say that shooting can only occur when the whole of the base edge (i.e. all points on it) must be able to draw a LoS to the enemy base. (Note, I have seen this in other rule sets, and it is usually described that both corners of the shooter must be able to draw a LoS to the target).

[Clawlessdragon]

Great stuff, glad I was able to find that Q & A - you know when you read stuff from so many sources you forget which is correct. But in this instance for WM, it is clear and it's from Rick.  That is not to say it has changed in WMR (as some mechanics have)... however reading the paragraph posted by Aldhick, the wording looks the same, so you can have staggered archers in WMR. - it does however raise some questions in my head about how the battle line is formed if charged. Pg38 suggests the chargers match the formation of the archers... it will be interesting for other views.

[Toothpick]

Nice find Justin. Looks like I will have to put up with your triangles after all.

[Aldhick]

In WMA the whole frontage needs to see the target to be able to shoot. However we decided not to overtake the shootingn mechanism from WMA to WMR to keep it more familiar for WM players (thought the WMA mechanics may seem more reasonable).