This is a legal reform?

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

It's a kind of magic... Finally! The Behind The Scenes blog tells you more about the coming rules for the magic phase. We hope you will enjoy the read!

  • Lagerlof wrote:

    youngseward wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Or wait I was right.. so tired lol.

    Slayer combat reforms and goes to the end of the unit, base contact with 2 guys only. The other dwarven unit reforms after and builds ranks while going 3 wide. Thus they should be in the center of the enemy unit and the other enemy unit cant charge them.

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    So I restate my question. Could I have moved the VS all the way to the right and then placed the DW over 4 wide? Same result of preventing a charge and all models are in combat. The issue is that the same models are not in combat with the VS.
    Heres the issue with these situations.The combat reform rules state "at the end of EACH combat reform, you must have at least as many of your models in base contact with an enemy as you had before the Reform".

    Since units do combat reforms individually, this means that you must do the reforms one by one, and after EACH reform check to see if the models in contact changes. So you cant shift over a single model to be in contact with less models, even if you plan to move other models into contact afterwards.

    (Im hoping that all made sense, its harder to do this from my phone)
    My example is 100% legit. There are more models in combat after the slayer reforms, not less. He's in base contact with 2 instead of 3, but that third model is also in base contact with the other unit so it's fine.

    I'm going to say no, you're misinterpreting it.

    Here's why: Imagine that you had lost combat. You "reform" the VS over (taking one model out of combat but putting another in - clearly illegal if that was the ONLY reform), and then fail the roll to reform the other unit, thus...???


    "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 "

    = at the end of EACH reform. All can mean "everyone individual one" and in context, clearly it has to. As such, while the VS can reform to shuffle one space over, he can't reform to shuffle more.
  • The exact wording states:

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

    Is this maybe what started the confusion for the first players who played it wrong, maybe they read it like at the end of all combined combat reforms, and not the end of each seperate combat reform?

    English is not my first language so I don't know if this sentence should be updated to make it more clear.

    @youngseward what do you think?
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    youngseward wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Or wait I was right.. so tired lol.

    Slayer combat reforms and goes to the end of the unit, base contact with 2 guys only. The other dwarven unit reforms after and builds ranks while going 3 wide. Thus they should be in the center of the enemy unit and the other enemy unit cant charge them.

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    So I restate my question. Could I have moved the VS all the way to the right and then placed the DW over 4 wide? Same result of preventing a charge and all models are in combat. The issue is that the same models are not in combat with the VS.
    Heres the issue with these situations.The combat reform rules state "at the end of EACH combat reform, you must have at least as many of your models in base contact with an enemy as you had before the Reform".
    Since units do combat reforms individually, this means that you must do the reforms one by one, and after EACH reform check to see if the models in contact changes. So you cant shift over a single model to be in contact with less models, even if you plan to move other models into contact afterwards.

    (Im hoping that all made sense, its harder to do this from my phone)
    My example is 100% legit. There are more models in combat after the slayer reforms, not less. He's in base contact with 2 instead of 3, but that third model is also in base contact with the other unit so it's fine.
    I'm going to say no, you're misinterpreting it.

    Here's why: Imagine that you had lost combat. You "reform" the VS over (taking one model out of combat but putting another in - clearly illegal if that was the ONLY reform), and then fail the roll to reform the other unit, thus...???


    "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 "

    = at the end of EACH reform. All can mean "everyone individual one" and in context, clearly it has to. As such, while the VS can reform to shuffle one space over, he can't reform to shuffle more.
    No model is removed from the combat if the slayer moves to the edge, he would be in base contact with 2 and the other unit is still in base contact with 3. So I have added one enemy model to the combat, no one was removed.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge


  • Pegasus moves from one flank to the other, LEGAL REFORM. The chariot was in base contact with all models, so no one was moved out from combat here.



    ILLEGAL REFORM. The left most spearmen is not in combat anymore.



    This is the exact example from post 1. But done in a LEGAL way. The slayer moves to the edge, no model has been moved out from the combat. Then the other unit follows, and at the same time reforms to more ranks and put 4 models behind, making any countercharge from the front impossible (unless the enemy unit combat reforms after)
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Lagerlof ().

  • Lagerlof wrote:

    The exact wording states:

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

    Is this maybe what started the confusion for the first players who played it wrong, maybe they read it like at the end of all combined combat reforms, and not the end of each seperate combat reform?

    English is not my first language so I don't know if this sentence should be updated to make it more clear.

    @youngseward what do you think?
    @WhammeWhamme has a point. However given that it has previously included the "after each reform" part, and has changed the wording for the "exact same models" part, I would really doubt that RAI is that "after every reform" is meant to mean "after each individual reform".

    It is ambiguous though and Ill bring it up with Rules Review for a rewording to make it clear (and to make sure we have RAI correct)
    "We cant all just grease up and wrestle pigs for coin anymore" - Herminard
  • youngseward wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    The exact wording states:

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

    Is this maybe what started the confusion for the first players who played it wrong, maybe they read it like at the end of all combined combat reforms, and not the end of each seperate combat reform?

    English is not my first language so I don't know if this sentence should be updated to make it more clear.

    @youngseward what do you think?
    @WhammeWhamme has a point. However given that it has previously included the "after each reform" part, and has changed the wording for the "exact same models" part, I would really doubt that RAI is that "after every reform" is meant to mean "after each individual reform".
    It is ambiguous though and Ill bring it up with Rules Review for a rewording to make it clear (and to make sure we have RAI correct)
    If RAI is after all combined reforms, and not each seperate, this is gonna open up a can of worms. You would be able to do all crazy sort of combat reforms. I hope that's not the case.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • The first example you showed, the legal one, still strikes me as weird. It may be allowed, but it is ultra strange. I mean, would a unit amidst a fight take a step back and walk around your other unit to strike at the other side? That's hardly a "reform". I would never even have come to the idea that such a thing could be possible. Crazy stuff :P
    Revere the ancestors, obey your king, bear your arms with pride, fear no foe, hate the Greenskin, mistrust the Elf, and you can do no wrong.
  • the shadow goat wrote:

    The first example you showed, the legal one, still strikes me as weird. It may be allowed, but it is ultra strange. I mean, would a unit amidst a fight take a step back and walk around your other unit to strike at the other side? That's hardly a "reform". I would never even have come to the idea that such a thing could be possible. Crazy stuff :P
    Atleast the Pegasus has fly :P

    But yeah. It does look a bit wierd. But it's very rare.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • Lagerlof wrote:



    This is the exact example from post 1. But done in a LEGAL way. The slayer moves to the edge, no model has been moved out from the combat. Then the other unit follows, and at the same time reforms to more ranks and put 4 models behind, making any countercharge from the front impossible (unless the enemy unit combat reforms after)
    Is this really legal?
    The character was in contact with 3 enemy models. After reform it is in contact with only 2.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:



    This is the exact example from post 1. But done in a LEGAL way. The slayer moves to the edge, no model has been moved out from the combat. Then the other unit follows, and at the same time reforms to more ranks and put 4 models behind, making any countercharge from the front impossible (unless the enemy unit combat reforms after)
    Is this really legal?The character was in contact with 3 enemy models. After reform it is in contact with only 2.
    There is nothing that prevents that. Same number of models on each side can't be less, exact same enemy models must still be in base contact, but can be with different models.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • arwaker wrote:

    I must be wrong, but I always thought (and played) each individual unit contributing must have the same quantity (or more) of opposing models in base contact after reform.
    Yes I think you have just played it wrong. Unless I am missing something, I can't find any rules that agree with your thinking atleast.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • Interresting topic ! I think 4 pages of debates shows that there should definitely be precisions about legal moves ...

    Anyway, I feel very weird about these reforms that don't make any sense at all ...

    "Oh wait, I'm gonna go hit your friend on the other side of the unit while everyone shuffles to let me do that..."

    I've always been annoyed with tricks like these in this game...

    It's not realistic nor immersive, just feel weid and abusive..

    When you are fighting some dudes, you are locked with them !
  • Lagerlof wrote:



    Pegasus moves from one flank to the other, LEGAL REFORM. The chariot was in base contact with all models, so no one was moved out from combat here.
    Is this really right?

    Rulebook - Page 7 wrote:

    A unit has 4 arcs: front, rear , and two flanks. Each arc is determined by extending a straight line from the corners of the unit's bases, I na 135° angle from the unit's front (for the front arc), rear(for the rear arc) or flanks(for the flank arcs), see figure 1. Units on round bases don't have arcs (they can draw Line of Sight from any point on their bases, in any direction).
    This tells me that each flank is it's own facing.

    The combat reform rule clearly states the same facing.


    Rulebook - Page 58 wrote:

    When a unit performs a Combat Reform, remove the unit from the Battlefield, and then place it back on the Battlefield in a legal formation, in base contact with the enemy unit(s) it was fighting before, and in the enemy’s same facing. You may ignore the Unit Spacing rule for units involved in the same combat(but cannot move in to base contact with units that you were not in base contact with previously), and no model may end up more than twice its Movement value from its starting position.
    More on this topic: Why is the words arc and facing used interchangeably like this? Could we stick to one of them. A units flank facing sounds really weird to me. Shouldn't this be arc? The facing of a unit sounds to me to be its front.
    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:

    Lagerlof wrote:



    Pegasus moves from one flank to the other, LEGAL REFORM. The chariot was in base contact with all models, so no one was moved out from combat here.
    Is this really right?

    Rulebook - Page 7 wrote:

    A unit has 4 arcs: front, rear , and two flanks. Each arc is determined by extending a straight line from the corners of the unit's bases, I na 135° angle from the unit's front (for the front arc), rear(for the rear arc) or flanks(for the flank arcs), see figure 1. Units on round bases don't have arcs (they can draw Line of Sight from any point on their bases, in any direction).
    This tells me that each flank is it's own facing.
    The combat reform rule clearly states the same facing.


    Rulebook - Page 58 wrote:

    When a unit performs a Combat Reform, remove the unit from the Battlefield, and then place it back on the Battlefield in a legal formation, in base contact with the enemy unit(s) it was fighting before, and in the enemy’s same facing. You may ignore the Unit Spacing rule for units involved in the same combat(but cannot move in to base contact with units that you were not in base contact with previously), and no model may end up more than twice its Movement value from its starting position.
    More on this topic: Why is the words arc and facing used interchangeably like this? Could we stick to one of them. A units flank facing sounds really weird to me. Shouldn't this be arc? The facing of a unit sounds to me to be its front.
    The pegasus in engaged in the front of the unit, he's not actually in the flank arc. He just moved to the other flank, but still engaged in the front. Poor wording from my part.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

    Many of the questions already got an answer:
    Check out the FAQ here!

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
  • Might be poor wording, but clearly I need some glasses. I thought the pegasus was engaged to the wagon :)

    So glad that isn't possible!

    Personally I think the rules should be changed to say that the same enemy models must still be engaged to the unit performing the reform. I don't think jumping around like this should be allowed.
    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
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    TheSpid wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:



    Pegasus moves from one flank to the other, LEGAL REFORM. The chariot was in base contact with all models, so no one was moved out from combat here.
    Is this really right?

    Rulebook - Page 7 wrote:

    A unit has 4 arcs: front, rear , and two flanks. Each arc is determined by extending a straight line from the corners of the unit's bases, I na 135° angle from the unit's front (for the front arc), rear(for the rear arc) or flanks(for the flank arcs), see figure 1. Units on round bases don't have arcs (they can draw Line of Sight from any point on their bases, in any direction).
    This tells me that each flank is it's own facing.The combat reform rule clearly states the same facing.


    Rulebook - Page 58 wrote:

    When a unit performs a Combat Reform, remove the unit from the Battlefield, and then place it back on the Battlefield in a legal formation, in base contact with the enemy unit(s) it was fighting before, and in the enemy’s same facing. You may ignore the Unit Spacing rule for units involved in the same combat(but cannot move in to base contact with units that you were not in base contact with previously), and no model may end up more than twice its Movement value from its starting position.
    More on this topic: Why is the words arc and facing used interchangeably like this? Could we stick to one of them. A units flank facing sounds really weird to me. Shouldn't this be arc? The facing of a unit sounds to me to be its front.
    The pegasus in engaged in the front of the unit, he's not actually in the flank arc. He just moved to the other flank, but still engaged in the front. Poor wording from my part.
    my issue is that moving the peg to the other side of the combat is legal because the opponents models are all engage or am I incorrect?