Slitherine

there is a lot of chatter on the various yahoo groups abotu round generals and for the life of me I cant find how you measure a general's movement (ie from where to where).

corner to corner - using the corner the travels the furthest is how Ive been doing it but that may be a DBx hangover? Do you just measure the gap the start adn ending position spans? If thats the case then the advantage based on the facing of round generals and whether then can make the distance to a BG to join up is not such a problem.

Sure you can put a 40mm square base under it but then at yoru convenience you could change the angle to give you the greatest distance travelled.

anthony

The rules for this are on P48

Essentially a commander can move in any direction and the maximum distance that can be moved is the move of a light horse BG. There is no need to wheel or turn.

The way I do it and everyone else I have played seems to work the same is that as long as no part of the base exceeds the move distance then the move is fine. Think of it as an old DBM single element move, no corner can exceed the move distance. If you have a round base then essentially the centre of the base is what matters but that can be measuered effectively just my measuring from the edge of the base and putting the base no more than the move away from where it started.

There is no rocket science here, just measuring.

hammy wrote:The rules for this are on P48

Essentially a commander can move in any direction and the maximum distance that can be moved is the move of a light horse BG. There is no need to wheel or turn.
[snip]
There is no rocket science here, just measuring.

I think I have been a bit lax in the past.
I have measurednearest point to nearest point and seen that it was under 7" and then just moved it into a suitable position.
I guess I should have measured the furthest corner to corner from original postion to the new legal position (alligned to a base in the new BG (assuming it is joining a unit). It could make a difference sometimes.

We have been expecting a corner (at the least) to reach the target location/end of the move. Usually, since all four corners are on the same base...if one corner reaches the new position that's a good/completed move. We DO keep an eye out for terrain effects, etc. No "passing through...excuse me mate" enemy units.

CrazyHarborc wrote:We have been expecting a corner (at the least) to reach the target location/end of the move. Usually, since all four corners are on the same base...if one corner reaches the new position that's a good/completed move. We DO keep an eye out for terrain effects, etc. No "passing through...excuse me mate" enemy units.

If the commander's edges are not in the same orientation as the unit he is joining, then getting one corner into contact with a corner is not enough. You need to rotate, which adds to the distance moved by the other corners.

We've been playing it as Lawrence indicates, counting the distance an adjustment takes to line up a commander base edge-to-base edge with a BG he joins.

lawrenceg wrote:

CrazyHarborc wrote:We have been expecting a corner (at the least) to reach the target location/end of the move. Usually, since all four corners are on the same base...if one corner reaches the new position that's a good/completed move. We DO keep an eye out for terrain effects, etc. No "passing through...excuse me mate" enemy units.

If the commander's edges are not in the same orientation as the unit he is joining, then getting one corner into contact with a corner is not enough. You need to rotate, which adds to the distance moved by the other corners.

So you put them on round bases and avoid this whole consideration...?

possum wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

CrazyHarborc wrote:We have been expecting a corner (at the least) to reach the target location/end of the move. Usually, since all four corners are on the same base...if one corner reaches the new position that's a good/completed move. We DO keep an eye out for terrain effects, etc. No "passing through...excuse me mate" enemy units.

If the commander's edges are not in the same orientation as the unit he is joining, then getting one corner into contact with a corner is not enough. You need to rotate, which adds to the distance moved by the other corners.

So you put them on round bases and avoid this whole consideration...?

Assuming I grant you the concession of using illegally shaped bases, I think you will have problems achieving corner to corner and edge to edge contact with any of your troop bases in order to join a BG.

lawrenceg wrote:

possum wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: If the commander's edges are not in the same orientation as the unit he is joining, then getting one corner into contact with a corner is not enough. You need to rotate, which adds to the distance moved by the other corners.

So you put them on round bases and avoid this whole consideration...?

Assuming I grant you the concession of using illegally shaped bases, I think you will have problems achieving corner to corner and edge to edge contact with any of your troop bases in order to join a BG.

Why do you need to rotate the commander at all?

All the rules require is edge to edge and corner to corner. The 'facing' of a commander is irrelevant.

hammy wrote:Why do you need to rotate the commander at all?

All the rules require is edge to edge and corner to corner. The 'facing' of a commander is irrelevant.

Not if none of his bases edges are parallel to any of those of the BG he wishes to join.

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:Why do you need to rotate the commander at all?

All the rules require is edge to edge and corner to corner. The 'facing' of a commander is irrelevant.

Not if none of his bases edges are parallel to any of those of the BG he wishes to join.

The 'orientation' matters but the 'facing' doesn't.

The post I was replying to seemed to imply that you might need to turn the commanders base to get it facing the right way.

possum wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

CrazyHarborc wrote:We have been expecting a corner (at the least) to reach the target location/end of the move. Usually, since all four corners are on the same base...if one corner reaches the new position that's a good/completed move. We DO keep an eye out for terrain effects, etc. No "passing through...excuse me mate" enemy units.

If the commander's edges are not in the same orientation as the unit he is joining, then getting one corner into contact with a corner is not enough. You need to rotate, which adds to the distance moved by the other corners.

So you put them on round bases and avoid this whole consideration...?

Exactly my point - that the roundies get to move further if they can spin and move 7" when a squared general has some corners moving further and hence wont get as far.

hammy wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:Why do you need to rotate the commander at all?

All the rules require is edge to edge and corner to corner. The 'facing' of a commander is irrelevant.

Not if none of his bases edges are parallel to any of those of the BG he wishes to join.

The 'orientation' matters but the 'facing' doesn't.

The post I was replying to seemed to imply that you might need to turn the commanders base to get it facing the right way.

Doesnt having free orientation give the roundies extra move if the general is oriented differently to the BG wishing to join?

the roundies get to move further if they can spin and move 7"

But round bases are not legal. I wouldn't mind playing at the club, cos they look nice, but would be pretty miffed playing agianst them in a competition

philqw78 wrote:

the roundies get to move further if they can spin and move 7"

But round bases are not legal. I wouldn't mind playing at the club, cos they look nice, but would be pretty miffed playing agianst them in a competition

Its a little unavoidable as in our local area (ie the continent of Australia) there are a lot of round bases as there was a lot of round base promotion early on and no-one really mentioned or thought of the impacts other that the negative (slightly less control distance at angles.

philqw78 wrote:
But round bases are not legal. I wouldn't mind playing at the club, cos they look nice, but would be pretty miffed playing agianst them in a competition

I've played against an army with them in competition - Ian Speed IIRC - and there was no problem, especially as it was a very well painted army

Ah, but Ian's a nice bloke and a nice painter. Two very disarming qualities

I use the round bases myself and have had no complaints from my opponents after 7 tournaments. I have found it much easier to distinquish round bases from standard 40mm square bases. Incidentally, my bases are only 38mm in diameter so I pay a 2mm "penalty" for the asthetics of the roudn base.

berthier wrote:I use the round bases myself and have had no complaints from my opponents after 7 tournaments. I have found it much easier to distinquish round bases from standard 40mm square bases. Incidentally, my bases are only 38mm in diameter so I pay a 2mm "penalty" for the asthetics of the roudn base.

I think the best way to measure for a round base would be to get the edge of the base to the centre of a side of the BG to be joined. That said I have very rarely (actually never that I can remember) had issues with the last milimetre of movement for a commander making a difference

hammy wrote:

berthier wrote:I use the round bases myself and have had no complaints from my opponents after 7 tournaments. I have found it much easier to distinquish round bases from standard 40mm square bases. Incidentally, my bases are only 38mm in diameter so I pay a 2mm "penalty" for the asthetics of the roudn base.

I think the best way to measure for a round base would be to get the edge of the base to the centre of a side of the BG to be joined. That said I have very rarely (actually never that I can remember) had issues with the last milimetre of movement for a commander making a difference

Funny, I find that I'm nearly always just a few milimetres short of getting to that BG that I really want to get to .