Brigaded units facing to the rear.

[Toothpick]

Hi,
Had an interesting situation in our game last night, whereby one of my opponent's 4 unit brigade's (line formation) of O&Gs moved full pace, and then the stands in the rear 2 units each rotated individually on the spot so that these 'rear' 2 units were now facing to the rear.
1. Is this allowed?
2. Is there a movement penalty for units moving backwards?
3. Is there a mininmum amount of movement required for a stand to rotate on the spot to face the other way?
4. Can stands in a unit rotate on the spot?
5. Or does the whole unit have to wheel on the spot?

Thanks,
Shane

[Lex]

Hi,
Had an interesting situation in our game last night, whereby one of my opponent's 4 unit brigade's (line formation) of O&Gs moved full pace, and then the stands in the rear 2 units each rotated individually on the spot so that these 'rear' 2 units were now facing to the rear.
1. Is this allowed?
2. Is there a movement penalty for units moving backwards?
3. Is there a mininmum amount of movement required for a stand to rotate on the spot to face the other way?
4. Can stands in a unit rotate on the spot?
5. Or does the whole unit have to wheel on the spot?

Thanks,
Shane

1 yes
2 no
3/4/5 stands can rotate, calculate using 2PI-radius thingy

[Dave]

When moving a unit you move each stand individually, with each turn/rotation/straight movement accounted for. Given that, they wouldn't have been able to move the full 20cm of their move and spin to face backwards. You have to account for that rotation.

[Clawlessdragon]

This would be true if we were playing WHFB 3rd edition, lots of rules for changing formation, wheeling, snaking, movement penalties etc. But in warmaster, it is simplified for ease of play and no macro measuring. I don't know what the formula is for pi radius, and at no point in the rules does it state minus 2 or 4 cm if a stand wishes to pivot on the spot. Page 21, moving stands has been expanded in the WMR rules, I can't copy and paste, but it says stands move one at a time, no need to retain original formation and are simply re arranged as needed when the unit moves. Stands do not have to move to their front, can move backwards, to the side, at any angle or in any orientation or direction.

[Dave]

No part of a stand can move further than its permitted
maximum  movement  distance.  Always  measure  from
the part of the stand that moves the greatest distance

With stands having a facing you have to pay the cm to pivot and rearrange them. A stand's front edge is a "part of the stand". You don't get to move the stand 20cm and then pivot it for free. That would mean its edges moved more than 20cm.

What you're quoting is only saying that you're allowed to reposition them with that move, not that you get to do it for free. If that were the case, I could charge my infantry that are in column and 19.9cm away from the enemy and put them in line with all of them in contact with enemy stands.

[Clawlessdragon]

For the record I do agree, it makes sense that total move is reduced as you make more man overs from point a to point b. However, I do not believe that is the intention of the rules. I think they purposely gloss over these finer details in the name of faster play and less housekeeping. For the same reason there is no move reduction for obstacles, woods, marshes etc.

So far no one has actually given a figure of how much move is reduced if you pivot 180 or twist 90 deg, as there is no official figure, I think a new thread would start as people argue should it be half move, 5cm, 1cm? Another example (on the same page) talks about the gap rule, it gives an example of stands twisting 90deg to fit through a 20mm gap and twisting back again on the other side, with no mention of a reduction of movement for that manoeuvre.

As I say I beleive the intention of the rules are simply move a to b, and place your stands how you see fit, for ease of play and no arguments between players as they argue was that twist an extra 1 or 2cms. Happy to be corrected 

[honestmistake]

My 2cents/pence would be to point out that for a whole stand to pivot should not involve the man/woman/orc/demon in the middle standing still while eveyone else marches a nice even circle when it is much more sensible to assume that each indivual simply turns around on the spot. Obviously that only works if the stand itself does not change position (ie pivot on a corner) and thus occupy a new footprint on the table. Makes perfect sense for infantry far less sense for chariots but such is the ambiguity of simplified rules

[Dave]

However, I do not believe that is the intention of the rules.

I definitely don't agree with you there. I can't really point to anything beyond what I've already pointed to though: the rules measure the part of the stand that moved the most, and an edge is part of that stand.

We played it that way at the WM day a few years back, and that had at least five groups from across Europe and North America there.

Also, here's some thread where we've gone over something like this before:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7953.msg66208#msg66208
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8124.msg67376#msg67376

[andys]

Pivoting? Surely the unit would just "About Face". Takes a little time to do, causes a little disruption to the unit as the commanders push their way to the front, penalty perhaps a couple of cm maximum from the units move?

Remember the unit is not 30 infantry figures, 12 cavalry or 3 chariots for example. From the rule book:

"...the actual number of warriors depicted is typically about 30-40 in the case of an infantry regiment – we must imagine the formation whole and glorious as it marches to battle! This abstraction, by which a few models are taken to represent many more actual warriors..."

[Clawlessdragon]

Also, here's some thread where we've gone over something like this before:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7953.msg66208#msg66208
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8124.msg67376#msg67376

Nice - I see what you mean, it has been the source of debate before, and look at those complex formula's to work out the distance a stand moves to complete a 180deg turn . I like the comparison of a school band marching forward, and about facing (not wheeling around in a slow arc).. that said it does take time to move and about face, even if the footprint has not moved.

So as kindly worked out in the other threads - it takes 7cm to turn 180 and 3.5cm 90deg... or for ease you can say 3cm per 90deg turn. It would be nice to see this confirmation from the 'source' as this can be seen as another house rule. Unfortunately, unless already in one of the warmags we won't get this confirmation.

However, we have this fantastic WMR rule set that is evolving with the community and with very experienced committee members pushing it along. Hopefully one of them will see this thread, deem it worthwhile for a ruling and have it included in the next version of WMR.   

[Aldhick]

Well we already had a discussion in rules committee on that issue and it was very similar to this one - math geeks vs. anti-math nerds. 

First - though I might compiled two rules system, they were still both written by Rick Priestley, and therefore they are open to be interpreted by anyone, not just me or rules committee. This especially is the tough one as the two "schools" are deeply rooted in the communities.
 
And now to my point of view. It will probably bring even more confusion, but I'm totally on the anti-math side. The only tool you need to messure in the game is the tape meassure as stated in the rules. There's nothing about a calculator you would need to calculate the radius of pivoting unit. I also don't think the stand must literally pivot.  So if a unit is making "about face" than the actual distance it moves is 2cm as the front edge is moved to the back and vice versa. This way is imo much player-firendly and doesn't punish you for manouvering by drastic movement reduction (third of your movement just for about face? no way!). This is imo the original intention of the movement rules. It was definitely ment to be different from Warhammer in this regard.

[Lex]

This is imo the original intention of the movement rules. It was definitely ment to be different from Warhammer in this regard.

The original intent of the rule is clearly stated in the rulebook

NO POINT OF A STAND IS ALLOWED TO MOVE MORE THEN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE.

There is no "math" involved in implementing that rule, but math > measuring when making moves other then in a straight line. That said, I do like the implied 2cm move to make an "about face" and would most certainly support that.

FYI..... using VECTORS (iow breaking down movement in distinctive straigth moves) versus using a "bendy" tapemeasure makes for clarity for both players and speeds up the game. Worst case of 'bendy tapemeasure' ever encounterd had that player adding on average 5-7 cm to EACH move he made in the event.

[Dave]

I don't think we need a ruling for this as I can't see how it can be viewed as a house rule. It's a result derived from following what's written in the rules.

As to requiring a calculator, it's basic arithmetic. People aren't using calculators to add up how many dice they're rolling on the charge, this is no different. Even if you don't want to bother with that it's not something you have to calculate every time, just remember that it takes 7cm to turn a stand about should be sufficient.

A house rule of "2cm for an about face" seems simple enough as well.

[Aquahog]

Well we already had a discussion in rules committee on that issue and it was very similar to this one - math geeks vs. anti-math nerds. 

For what it's worth this math geek (I prefer engineer, but whatever floats your boat ) saw the wisdom of the other side's argument to simplify it.

Calculator? Who uses them by the way?

[Toothpick]

Hi,
Personally, i don't like the idea of having units in brigades facing in two different directions.
My reason being:
A brigade of 4 infantry units in line one behind the other, with the rear two units facing in the opposite direction to the front two units. This brigade cannot be charged to the rear. As simple as that, the best an opponent can get is a flank charge. To me this penalises players who through either luck or skill have got their own units into position for a rear charge. It also means (and I intend no disrespect to anyone) that the player using this formation does not have to consider movement and the positioning of units/brigades as much.  Safe in the knowledge that:
 a) They won’t be charged in the rear, and all that entails.
b) They are in a good position to charge/initiative charge if the opposing unit(s) fails to charge them.
The brigade has two “front” edges.

To me this is a very defensive formation, that has all the benefits, but no negatives.

This could also apply equally to a cavalry brigade (i think). Two units in front, two more behind and facing in the opposite direction. You're not going to loose support bonus, as cavalry don't get it anyway. A very mobile block, with two "front" edges.

All the rules say is that a unit under orders cannot move more than they are allowed to. There is nothing to say what way the unit must face when it finishes moving. Therefore as far as i can see, the above formation is valid - unfortunately.
I don't think i will bother with a 2cm movement penalty "house rule", as there are enough other rules to get my head around. 

Shane