This is a legal reform?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Calcathin wrote:

    @DJWoodelf

    Based on what mr @Lagerlof mentioned, i don't think the combat reforms in the video are correct. Lagerlof mentioned that you check the exact enemy models after each reform, while the video mentions at the end of all reforms, which I believe is wrong because you never know if the next unit will pass the combat reform, so it should be a check after each reform
    I would say you roll all tests for combat reform before actually moving any unit, because first it explains you have to pass a ld-test to be allowed to do it. The next paragraph states that if both players want to do it the active player choses who goes first, that person then proceeds with all his/hers combat reforms.

    Either way, you have to meet the criteria after each combat reform, otherwise you could do some real crazy stuff...
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    ETC 2016 - Referee

    Creator of Super biased EoS player.
  • @Lagerlof Thanks for clarifying. Still, based on your answer, I believe some of the combat reforms from the video which are marked as valid are illegal. I suggest to review those as otherwise it may cause people to get it wrong

    I shared the initial posts in the HbE subforum and many people were playing those rules wrong or didn't understand them properly. It really needs clarity in the book and examples of what is and what isn't legal
  • Nicklz wrote:

    "Furthermore, at the end of all your Combat Reforms, the
    exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the Combat Reform must still be
    in base contact after the Reform (but they may be Engaged with different models or even units)."

    Simple fix to stop some of the actually legal shenanigans - give the key clause an object.

    'the exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the combat reform must still be in base contact with the same units after the Reform (but they may be engaged with different models).' (Amended in italics)

    Now you can never hop a unit, because you must keep the unit in base contact with the same models.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Nicklz wrote:

    "Furthermore, at the end of all your Combat Reforms, the
    exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the Combat Reform must still be
    in base contact after the Reform (but they may be Engaged with different models or even units)."
    Simple fix to stop some of the actually legal shenanigans - give the key clause an object.

    'the exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the combat reform must still be in base contact with the same units after the Reform (but they may be engaged with different models).' (Amended in italics)

    Now you can never hop a unit, because you must keep the unit in base contact with the same models.
    Seriously Bad unintended consequences in this one. This would stop not only units jumping across each other, but would actively stop units even sliding down to make more room.

    Imagine a Cheap Horde (Say 60 Slaves) Fighting a 5x6 Much harder hitting unit (Say a full unit of Unit of Saurian Warriors) and a Lone Mounted Character (in this case a Veteran on Raptor (aka Cowboy)). The Cowboy wants to slide as far down as he can so that the warriors beside him can now reform and drop out to 8 wide to maximize attacks. Under current rules this is not only permissible, but a very good (and non cheesy reason) to reform.

    Your alteration prevents this as the Cowboy could not slide - the exact same three models he was in base to base with would hold him in place indefinitely. Would not be difficult for skilled players to force enemy charges into awkward spots against hordes, thus preventing a lot of future attacks being reformed into the fight.

    KoE Community Support

  • I think these discussions and misunderstandings (even OB360's video which shows that even people who think they understand the combat reform rules get them wrong easily) show a real weak spot in the rules. Maybe combat reforms need a serious overhaul. Preferably one that simplifies what you can and cannot do, tells you why, and is internally consistent.

    Why can't models with longer bases turn to face? Why can you combat reform to put more models in base contact, but not to reduce the number? Surely reforming a 5x10 into a 10x5 formation isn't easier than the other way round? Why is reducing incoming attacks cheesy, but increasing your own number of attacks okay? Why do the exact same enemy models have to be in contact, but only the same number of your own guys stay in combat after a reform (or is that wrong?)? These rules are arbitrary, clunky, don't seem consistent with eachother and are almost impossible to memorize.

    Combat reforms are a mess.

    Theo
  • The current golden rule is, that a combat reform must not reduce the number of "incoming attacks"...which shall avoid abusive use of combat reforms.

    This is due to the fact that only models in contact (incl. supporting attacks) may attack.

    If that was changed in a specific way then there wouldn't be such a huge problem with rules for combat reforms, especially reforming units less wide than before.
    @Lagerlof: you know what I mean!?

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • I personally have a issue with the game mechanic of allowing a unit to jump to the other side of a combat. The abuse potential is that you can set up the overrun in a specific direction and which unit when originally the player had bad choices. It also takes a player out from being charged which seems to be the biggest abuse to me because some could set it up perfectly and then the opposing player jumps to the other side.
  • Jurid wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Nicklz wrote:

    "Furthermore, at the end of all your Combat Reforms, the
    exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the Combat Reform must still be
    in base contact after the Reform (but they may be Engaged with different models or even units)."
    Simple fix to stop some of the actually legal shenanigans - give the key clause an object.
    'the exact same enemy models that were in base contact with opposing models before the combat reform must still be in base contact with the same units after the Reform (but they may be engaged with different models).' (Amended in italics)

    Now you can never hop a unit, because you must keep the unit in base contact with the same models.
    Seriously Bad unintended consequences in this one. This would stop not only units jumping across each other, but would actively stop units even sliding down to make more room.
    Imagine a Cheap Horde (Say 60 Slaves) Fighting a 5x6 Much harder hitting unit (Say a full unit of Unit of Saurian Warriors) and a Lone Mounted Character (in this case a Veteran on Raptor (aka Cowboy)). The Cowboy wants to slide as far down as he can so that the warriors beside him can now reform and drop out to 8 wide to maximize attacks. Under current rules this is not only permissible, but a very good (and non cheesy reason) to reform.

    Your alteration prevents this as the Cowboy could not slide - the exact same three models he was in base to base with would hold him in place indefinitely. Would not be difficult for skilled players to force enemy charges into awkward spots against hordes, thus preventing a lot of future attacks being reformed into the fight.
    "Seriously Bad unintended consequences" seems like an overstatement. It mildly inconveniences you because you can get a few less models into combat. It requires highly specific scenarios to trigger it, and likely affects whether you can get a few more models into combat. OTOH, it stops a lot of shenanigans.

    Considering the only models that will interfere with your combat reforms are your own, you have no one to blame but yourself for their positioning being bad. And if your opponent takes advantage of that to limit how many models you can get into combat, bravo to them. They should reap the rewards for doing so.

    So let's rephrase that to 'mildly annoying totally intended consequences'.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • The shifting units to totally different positions seems like realy bad ruling of these situations.
    It is possible in the rules, and it is definitly done. And in addition there are a lot of players, even good ones, that tend to "forget" that they have to keep the same models in base contact when they wish to hop around. Players with lower experience, will never be firm enough with the rules, to make this not happen.

    So in my opinion, there should be very clear wordings, pictures and limits how this hopping around is allowed.
    The pegasus example is the perfect thing to show that something is weird with the actual rule.
  • berti wrote:

    So in my opinion, there should be very clear wordings, pictures and limits how this hopping around is allowed.

    The pegasus example is the perfect thing to show that something is weird with the actual rule.
    Or we should just not allow it.
    Except for things like a Pegasus that can Fly so could reasonably be able to hop around like that.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    "Seriously Bad unintended consequences" seems like an overstatement. It mildly inconveniences you because you can get a few less models into combat. It requires highly specific scenarios to trigger it, and likely affects whether you can get a few more models into combat. OTOH, it stops a lot of shenanigans.
    Considering the only models that will interfere with your combat reforms are your own, you have no one to blame but yourself for their positioning being bad. And if your opponent takes advantage of that to limit how many models you can get into combat, bravo to them. They should reap the rewards for doing so.

    So let's rephrase that to 'mildly annoying totally intended consequences'.
    This is neither a rare situation nor take any skill on part of opponent to set up. KoE lance charges in against ANY 5 wide formation to hold them in position. Because we must maximise we must charge dead centre... No skill on part of opponent. Next turn (since we are meant to be multi charging and using our speed to set up uneven fights) we charge in main combat unit but now against 25mm only 2 ranks can fight, against 20mm only 1 rank.

    Opponent did nothing but field a unit 5 wide, but Your proposal locks this in forever, knights can't even slide across to let their mates into the fight after winning second round of combat. Ill stick with my original assertion.

    KoE Community Support

  • Jurid wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    "Seriously Bad unintended consequences" seems like an overstatement. It mildly inconveniences you because you can get a few less models into combat. It requires highly specific scenarios to trigger it, and likely affects whether you can get a few more models into combat. OTOH, it stops a lot of shenanigans.Considering the only models that will interfere with your combat reforms are your own, you have no one to blame but yourself for their positioning being bad. And if your opponent takes advantage of that to limit how many models you can get into combat, bravo to them. They should reap the rewards for doing so.

    So let's rephrase that to 'mildly annoying totally intended consequences'.
    This is neither a rare situation nor take any skill on part of opponent to set up. KoE lance charges in against ANY 5 wide formation to hold them in position. Because we must maximise we must charge dead centre... No skill on part of opponent. Next turn (since we are meant to be multi charging and using our speed to set up uneven fights) we charge in main combat unit but now against 25mm only 2 ranks can fight, against 20mm only 1 rank.
    Opponent did nothing but field a unit 5 wide, but Your proposal locks this in forever, knights can't even slide across to let their mates into the fight after winning second round of combat. Ill stick with my original assertion.
    If you're multi-charging, they'll both arrive in the same turn, and will be able to jointly maximize however they want. If it's taking you a turn to get a second unit in there, why are you hitting the front of the unit?

    This situation just sounds like bad play all around.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    If you're multi-charging, they'll both arrive in the same turn, and will be able to jointly maximize however they want. If it's taking you a turn to get a second unit in there, why are you hitting the front of the unit?
    This situation just sounds like bad play all around.
    Please don't try to win an argument by asserting your opponent is unskilled or plays bad.

    This situation often crops up in many, many situations, even with best play. Playing Cavalry armies requires higher-risk, higher-reward play to be successful, and sometimes multi-charge plans face one charge coming up short.

    Even last week I had 2x Lances going into the FLANK of a block of Temple Guard: 10 Aspirants made it, 9 Questing Knights and the BSB pulled up short. Due to Steadfast, they easily reformed on a 9RR ColdBlooded to face me. Under your proposal they could have gone 5 wide and made sure my questing lance could only get 2 in, and been stuck like that until (Thanks to Bodyguard) I had to grind thru every model, with only 5/6 of my knights being able to be in the fight.

    Most units that are deserving of a Double or Triple Charge from KoE are going to be Unbreakable, Stubborn, or Steadfast with their flanks shielded by impassable terrain/table edge/dangerous terrain/another unit. It is exactly this situation where we need every able body in the fight, and it is exactly the situation your proposal will benefit the deathstar and not the good play of people trying multi-charges.

    Even if you are right - Assume as you have I have bad play all around, lets ask what we want to see more of:
    • Giving more protection for steadfast death-stars to give them protection in fights where they are engaged against 2 and don't want to be engaged by three, OR
    • Encouraging people to try for multi-charge plays and making the most of their movement phase, instead of relying upon bodyguard/stubborn.
    I want to play in a Meta that encourages the latter, not the former.

    Jurid

    KoE Community Support

  • Charging simply can't be that important to the game, unless you want to make infantry (who GET charged) unimportant.

    Infantry-centric game, KoE needs to find a way to get with the program, not turn every third thread into an argument about how they should be able to destroy any and all footsloggers with the charges Movement 8 + Swiftstride all but guarantees them.

    (If KoE fails a charge roll and loses the ensuing fight, they deserve to lose. Because if you've failed, you were charging from over 12" away, which is a distance normal [M4] units fail most of the time. You should've spent a turn getting closer without charging, like an infantry army would've had to.)


    Also, frankly, getting a flank charge on a unit that doesn't break isn't a sign of skill. Your opponent had no reason to try to prevent that. If the best your maneuvering can do is get a flank in on an unbreakable/bodyguard unit, your maneuvering was terrible. KoE players seem to obssess on charging in and breaking things.

    They should start focusing on how to actually kill the enemy. KoE needs to sacrifice some breaking power for killing power and the players need to adjust to a playstyle involving actually fighting the enemy, because if they ever actually got their wishes, it would last for 0.1 updates.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Charging simply can't be that important to the game, unless you want to make infantry (who GET charged) unimportant.

    Infantry-centric game, KoE needs to find a way to get with the program, not turn every third thread into an argument about how they should be able to destroy any and all footsloggers with the charges Movement 8 + Swiftstride all but guarantees them.

    (If KoE fails a charge roll and loses the ensuing fight, they deserve to lose. Because if you've failed, you were charging from over 12" away, which is a distance normal [M4] units fail most of the time. You should've spent a turn getting closer without charging, like an infantry army would've had to.)

    Also, frankly, getting a flank charge on a unit that doesn't break isn't a sign of skill. Your opponent had no reason to try to prevent that. If the best your maneuvering can do is get a flank in on an unbreakable/bodyguard unit, your maneuvering was terrible. KoE players seem to obssess on charging in and breaking things.

    They should start focusing on how to actually kill the enemy. KoE needs to sacrifice some breaking power for killing power and the players need to adjust to a playstyle involving actually fighting the enemy, because if they ever actually got their wishes, it would last for 0.1 updates.
    @Squirrelloid and @WhammeWhamme - In a Forum post regarding changes that affect predominantly 3rd round of combat at earliest, how are you interpreting this as I am arguing for stronger charges and the ability to blow people up on the charge? My arguments have been for in a sustained combat, retaining the ability to make more room to bring more troops into the fight AFTER they have charged, AFTER the fight has already been in place for at least a turn - it wouldn't actually affect the initial charge. This is the Antithesis of charging in and blowing thru units - it is the very definition of how a grinding fight needs to be won when you are always outnumbered.

    You will also notice even from my brief description I was bringing Aspirants and Questing - Our Long Range Missiles to lock people in to position, and our Premier Grinders (that are less reliable at charging) to be ready for a sustained fight. I also brought a Druid to the fight to keep bringing them back and increase toughness. In WhammeWhamme's words, I was indeed 'sacrificing some breaking power for killing power and adjusting to a playstyle involving actually fighting the enemy'.

    I knew I was going to be fighting Lizards, so I brought what was needed to get rid of their General/BSB/Caster/Ld 9 and knew it would be a hard, sustained fight. I knew this would not be won on the charge. I was using this as an example of how the suggested argument would be detrimental to bringing in reinforcements to a grinding fight and it is yourselves who introduced KoE power levels and failed charges. I even intentionally DIDN'T use KoE as the first example. The Irony here of course being that you are arguing that KoE should learn how to work in a sustained fight, and yet suggesting a change that makes it harder for us to reinforce a sustained fight...

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Also, frankly, getting a flank charge on a unit that doesn't break isn't a sign of skill. Your opponent had no reason to try to prevent that. If the best your maneuvering can do is get a flank in on an unbreakable/bodyguard unit, your maneuvering was terrible. KoE players seem to obssess on charging in and breaking things.
    Regarding this - one could also argue that Bodyguard and Unbreakable is actually broken.

    But Yes - I expect that if I put 380+ points worth of Character, and almost 1100 points of Knights into the FLANK of an 800 point unit, it should be something that is rewarded - and it should be something that an opponent cares about. And as I noted above, with Questing Knights the intent was not to instantly break them. I knew it would be a grind. But a Grind with 18 Knights, 6 Horses and a BSB fighting each round was what was needed.

    If Squirrelloid's suggestion was taken on board, it would be even easier for any Stubborn/Bodyguard unit who can survive and reform after the initial charge (who lets face it need to be multi-engaged) to keep enemy models out of the fight that common sense would say would surely push in. Would make stubborn/unbreakable even more abusable than it is now.

    KoE Community Support

  • I also see a problem with the current situation how combat reforms are done and which models may attack and where charging units have to contact the enemy unit to maximize attacks...resulting in other units (that either failed the charge or plan to charge the following turn) either can't bring enough models into contact or can't even charge because the friendly unit now is blocking the way.


    I see one possible change to the rules that could solve some or even most of the discussed problems without keeping a rule that allowes weird jumps by a unit from one side to the other.


    Currently only files that are in contact with an enemy, are allowed to attack.
    We could change the rule so that additionally to the normal attacks and the supporting attacks, also as many files may do "surrounding supporting attacks" as the number of files that are in contact with the enemy. (e.g. 3 files in contact with the enemy = 3 additional files may do "surrounding supporting attacks").


    So coming to the KoE example, in which one unit does the charge and another unit fails and in the next turn the unit that failed the charge before may only get into contact with one file because the other unit had to position in the centre of the enemy unit to maximize attacks:
    Now if the second unit charges and only ONE file gets into contact, still ONE additional file may do "surrounding supporting attacks".

    This would in fact also represent wider formations better than the current horde formation which only grants a bonus to a max wide unit (10 models)....and FieR is a weird bonus for a wide(r) formation anyway.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • Jurid wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Charging simply can't be that important to the game, unless you want to make infantry (who GET charged) unimportant.

    Infantry-centric game, KoE needs to find a way to get with the program, not turn every third thread into an argument about how they should be able to destroy any and all footsloggers with the charges Movement 8 + Swiftstride all but guarantees them.

    (If KoE fails a charge roll and loses the ensuing fight, they deserve to lose. Because if you've failed, you were charging from over 12" away, which is a distance normal [M4] units fail most of the time. You should've spent a turn getting closer without charging, like an infantry army would've had to.)

    Also, frankly, getting a flank charge on a unit that doesn't break isn't a sign of skill. Your opponent had no reason to try to prevent that. If the best your maneuvering can do is get a flank in on an unbreakable/bodyguard unit, your maneuvering was terrible. KoE players seem to obssess on charging in and breaking things.

    They should start focusing on how to actually kill the enemy. KoE needs to sacrifice some breaking power for killing power and the players need to adjust to a playstyle involving actually fighting the enemy, because if they ever actually got their wishes, it would last for 0.1 updates.
    @Squirrelloid and @WhammeWhamme - In a Forum post regarding changes that affect predominantly 3rd round of combat at earliest, how are you interpreting this as I am arguing for stronger charges and the ability to blow people up on the charge? My arguments have been for in a sustained combat, retaining the ability to make more room to bring more troops into the fight AFTER they have charged, AFTER the fight has already been in place for at least a turn - it wouldn't actually affect the initial charge. This is the Antithesis of charging in and blowing thru units - it is the very definition of how a grinding fight needs to be won when you are always outnumbered.
    You will also notice even from my brief description I was bringing Aspirants and Questing - Our Long Range Missiles to lock people in to position, and our Premier Grinders (that are less reliable at charging) to be ready for a sustained fight. I also brought a Druid to the fight to keep bringing them back and increase toughness. In WhammeWhamme's words, I was indeed 'sacrificing some breaking power for killing power and adjusting to a playstyle involving actually fighting the enemy'.

    I knew I was going to be fighting Lizards, so I brought what was needed to get rid of their General/BSB/Caster/Ld 9 and knew it would be a hard, sustained fight. I knew this would not be won on the charge. I was using this as an example of how the suggested argument would be detrimental to bringing in reinforcements to a grinding fight and it is yourselves who introduced KoE power levels and failed charges. I even intentionally DIDN'T use KoE as the first example. The Irony here of course being that you are arguing that KoE should learn how to work in a sustained fight, and yet suggesting a change that makes it harder for us to reinforce a sustained fight...

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Also, frankly, getting a flank charge on a unit that doesn't break isn't a sign of skill. Your opponent had no reason to try to prevent that. If the best your maneuvering can do is get a flank in on an unbreakable/bodyguard unit, your maneuvering was terrible. KoE players seem to obssess on charging in and breaking things.
    Regarding this - one could also argue that Bodyguard and Unbreakable is actually broken.
    But Yes - I expect that if I put 380+ points worth of Character, and almost 1100 points of Knights into the FLANK of an 800 point unit, it should be something that is rewarded - and it should be something that an opponent cares about. And as I noted above, with Questing Knights the intent was not to instantly break them. I knew it would be a grind. But a Grind with 18 Knights, 6 Horses and a BSB fighting each round was what was needed.

    If Squirrelloid's suggestion was taken on board, it would be even easier for any Stubborn/Bodyguard unit who can survive and reform after the initial charge (who lets face it need to be multi-engaged) to keep enemy models out of the fight that common sense would say would surely push in. Would make stubborn/unbreakable even more abusable than it is now.


    Temple Guard vs. Knights is pretty much the *definition* of a match-up that should not blindly favour the side with more points invested - the Knights are far, far more maneuverable, while the Temple Guard are protecting an incredibly expensive mage/general/BSB (and eating the resulting miscast damage), part of whose cost should factor into this.

    Worse, you gambled and lost on a long-range - thus risky - charge. How can I tell? Because the first 12" of charge range are *guaranteed* for KoE.

    13" charges are long range - unthinkably long range for a M4 infantry unit. If you rely on them succeeding and they don't, that's how the dice roll. You gambled and you lost. Nobody forced you to take that gamble.


    Incidentally, bringing a Druid in a cavalry force is not "planning to grind".

    "Planning to grind" would be having a big unit of infantry (Forlorns can hang with the best of them - a little less accurate, but they're as well-protected as it gets).

    Or, in terms of forum behaviour, agitating for changes to the KoE book to reduce the "on-charge" strength, flanking-breaking-power (howdy lance formation) and/or movement in exchange for increased grinding capabilities.


    You managed to muff getting charges in on a slow unit that doesn't even care if it's a flank charge or a frontal charge (so you didn't even need to spend time hunting for flanks).

    This proves only that you need to sharpen your skills some and move in closer before charging.



    See, here's the thing about being good at generalship: you need to be able to adapt. "FLANK EVERYTHING" is a tactic, not a strategy. Sometimes, tactics don't work and you need different ones. That's on you.

    (And hey, you DID come up with a different tactic: combination charges. You just executed it slightly wrong. Next time, get closer, auto-pass the charge roll, and win)
  • You guys are using way too much text :)

    No matter what, it is ridiculous that a unit cannot properly join in a fight against another unit because the front is mostly full.

    Whether this is good or not regarding balance is something else.

    I kinda like the suggestion of @DJWoodelf though it won't help in all situations. Would it be ridiculous to always allow all files to attack?
    If it removes the horde rule, even better. I really dislike that rule.
    Cuatl, mounted on an alpha carnosaur, equipped with multiple sun engines. Would name it Krulos.

    “When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
    C.S. Lewis
  • TheSpid wrote:

    You guys are using way too much text :)

    No matter what, it is ridiculous that a unit cannot properly join in a fight against another unit because the front is mostly full.

    Whether this is good or not regarding balance is something else.

    I kinda like the suggestion of @DJWoodelf though it won't help in all situations. Would it be ridiculous to always allow all files to attack?
    If it removes the horde rule, even better. I really dislike that rule.


    Er... no, not it's not?


    There are practical limits to how many people you can get to fight someone. Needing to take a bit of time to get some of your troops all the way around to flank them past their lines is... completely fair?

    Concentration of force is done because it's effective, not because it's super-easy.
  • So you don't think that in a real world environment some of them would engage and then the rest move around to engage?

    I certainly don't think they would stay 3 feet away looking on their allies fighting because they need to stay in a straight line.
    Cuatl, mounted on an alpha carnosaur, equipped with multiple sun engines. Would name it Krulos.

    “When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
    C.S. Lewis