This is a legal reform?

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

The latest T9A Scroll is released!! Check out the latest issue for new background information, an exciting battle report and much much more!

  • SirMC2015 wrote:

    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?
    He can do it because the left most spearmen is already in base contact with the chariot. Otherwise it would not be allowed, if you add another spear to the left so they are 6 wide for example.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

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

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    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?
    He can do it because the left most spearmen is already in base contact with the chariot. Otherwise it would not be allowed, if you add another spear to the left so they are 6 wide for example.
    now what if the left most spear model was a character, still legal?
  • SirMC2015 wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    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?
    He can do it because the left most spearmen is already in base contact with the chariot. Otherwise it would not be allowed, if you add another spear to the left so they are 6 wide for example.
    now what if the left most spear model was a character, still legal?
    Yes
    "We cant all just grease up and wrestle pigs for coin anymore" - Herminard
  • Being non english native speaking I must confess that I had understood the sentence to check after all unit combat reforms only at the end, not for each unit that combat reforms. I'd suggest more clarity.

    The illustrations from Mr. @Lagerlof are very clear and would be most welcome in the rulebook for easier understanding

    Highborn Elves ACS

    Advisory Board

    REALLY High Elf

  • Lagerlof wrote:

    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.
    in 8th edition I'm quite sure this wasnt allowed and even the text of the rule of T9A doesnt let me interpret this.

    If that was the case a smaller unit would be allowed to wander along a wider unit.

    I would say:
    NO model in contact with an enemy model may move during a combat reform.
    ALL models NOT in contact may move where they want.
    That's e.g. leads to the fact that wider units can change/dictate the flight direction by switching models NOT in contact from one side to the other OR make the formation wider or deeper. But always ONLY models not in contact.

    I dont hope that the rule changes in a more weird way from 8th to T9A.!?

    Please watch the tactical video of @oncebitten360 even though it's 3 years old.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Playtester

    Local Moderator


  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    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.
    in 8th edition I'm quite sure this wasnt allowed and even the text of the rule of T9A doesnt let me interpret this.
    If that was the case a smaller unit would be allowed to wander along a wider unit.

    I would say:
    NO model in contact with an enemy model may move during a combat reform.
    ALL models NOT in contact may move where they want.
    That's e.g. leads to the fact that wider units can change/dictate the flight direction by switching models NOT in contact from one side to the other OR make the formation wider or deeper. But always ONLY models not in contact.

    I dont hope that the rule changes in a more weird way from 8th to T9A.!?

    Please watch the tactical video of @oncebitten360 even though it's 3 years old.
    No, because then the "exact same enemy models" are not still engaged with you. Same reason a 50x100 monster that is flanked can't combat reform and turn to they are in his front (versus a wide enough unit of course)

    With colorcoding:

    "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 (friendly)."
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

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

    DJWoodelf wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    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.
    in 8th edition I'm quite sure this wasnt allowed and even the text of the rule of T9A doesnt let me interpret this.If that was the case a smaller unit would be allowed to wander along a wider unit.

    I would say:
    NO model in contact with an enemy model may move during a combat reform.
    ALL models NOT in contact may move where they want.
    That's e.g. leads to the fact that wider units can change/dictate the flight direction by switching models NOT in contact from one side to the other OR make the formation wider or deeper. But always ONLY models not in contact.

    I dont hope that the rule changes in a more weird way from 8th to T9A.!?

    Please watch the tactical video of @oncebitten360 even though it's 3 years old.
    No, because then the "exact same enemy models" are not still engaged with you. Same reason a 50x100 monster that is flanked can't combat reform and turn to they are in his front (versus a wide enough unit of course)
    With colorcoding:

    "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 (friendly)."
    I think DJWoodelfs suggestion is good.
    But there really must be a rule for models in contact that allows them to turn around. Otherwise a flank attack would be too strong.

    A) Models in contact are not allowed to change position
    (the middle of the contact edge must stay at the same poition)

    B) Models in contact are allowed to rotate/change direction
    (as long as they don't change contact edge middle position)
  • arwaker wrote:

    Why should you be able to run around during close combat? During being hit by enemy swords?
    You can change character position, but only if the character itself is not in contact. It is called "make way".
    Why wouldn't you be able to shoot a character with a cannon just because he has 5 friends with him?

    All rules aren't there to make sense, it would be an impossible game.
    Rules Questions?
    Moderator Requests

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

    Same reason a 50x100 monster that is flanked can't combat reform and turn to they are in his front (versus a wide enough unit of course)
    Never considered that before. That is dumb as hell.

    In my opinion, you should be allowed to reform into a narrower formation, even if it takes models out of combat. You should always have to form at least one full rank if you have enough models, so you couldn't reform into conga lines. The reform and formation rules are a mess.

    Theo
  • but why would you reward a monster for getting flanked?
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • what should it be able to negate being out played? They already mulchinfantry. If an infantry unit flanks a monster, why should it be allowed to reduce the attacks coming at it after being out played? Such a rules change will make it nearly impossible to deal with monsters via infantry.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • nicreap wrote:

    what should it be able to negate being out played? They already mulchinfantry. If an infantry unit flanks a monster, why should it be allowed to reduce the attacks coming at it after being out played? Such a rules change will make it nearly impossible to deal with monsters via infantry.
    Again, what? Not allowing the monster to turn around makes zero logical sense. A block of 50 infantry fighting in formation (a horde, for example) get to turn around when charged in the flank, but one single monster who doesn't have any formation to take into account shouldn't? That's ridiculous. It's not a question of balance, it's a question of verisimilitude.

    Theo
  • 1) Rules should be as simple as possible
    2) Rules should try to create a realistic game
    3) Rules should provide strategic and tactical depth.

    It is difficult to achieve all these.

    We should be allowed to:
    a) Turn around models in contact, even if this decreases the number of opposing models in contact.
    b) Move models that are not in contact to any allowed formation.

    We should not be allowed to:
    c) Move models already in contact to a more advantageous position.
    d) Decrease number of enemy models in contact, if it can be avoided by change of formation. If not possible, a) has higher priority.

    I'm not certain if we should be allowed to:
    e) Decrease the number of own models in contact. For example to form more ranks.
    I think we shouldn't be allowed to, because this would open posaibilities for shenanigans.

    How to make a simple rule achieving all these points?
  • Rules suggestion:

    1) Check if combat reform is allowed

    2) Remove all models that are not in contact

    3) Turn the remaining models in any direction.

    4) Create a legal formation with as few moves as possible.

    5) Maximize contact of own and enemy models

    6) But back the removed models and create a legal fornation.
  • Theorox wrote:

    A block of 50 infantry fighting in formation (a horde, for example) get to turn around when charged in the flank, but one single monster who doesn't have any formation to take into account shouldn't? That's ridiculous. It's not a question of balance, it's a question of verisimilitude.
    and I find it ridiculous that if you manage to outplay your opponent, he can just undo what you did, because his front is narrower than his flank. If you want monsters to be able to turn, then I would argue monsters need to be on 100x100 base.

    You shouldn't be able to counter being out played by reforming to reduce the attacks against you, otherwise who needs a seeker conga line? let your opponent charge in, THEN reform into a conga line
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.