This is a legal reform?

  • 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
  • TheSpid wrote:

    ....

    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.
    IMO, there would need to be a restriction, sensewise AND balancewise.
    E.g., a 10 wide unit having 20 attacks against a single model would not only be overpowered but also highly unrealistic.

    Rules Support

    Local Moderator


    Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    TheSpid wrote:

    ....

    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.
    IMO, there would need to be a restriction, sensewise AND balancewise.E.g., a 10 wide unit having 20 attacks against a single model would not only be overpowered but also highly unrealistic.
    Yeah I know... Pretty sure I/we had this conversation somewhere else...
    I agree. Some kind of restriction would be needed, but I don't think you can tie it to the amount of files already in combat. You could easily have situations where a horde formation only fights in two files even then. I don't really have a better suggestion, I'm just commenting :)

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    TheSpid wrote:

    So you don't think that in a real world environment some of them would engage and then the rest move around to engage?
    :huh: .....but this is a Tabletop Wargame, it's not the real world.
    And.... ?

    This is exactly what I said in my first post... That the situation where a unit only has one file (or two/three/whatever) to attack with is ridiculous, but that whether or not this is important to balance (and let me add dynamics of the game) is something else.
    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:

    DJWoodelf wrote:

    TheSpid wrote:

    ....

    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.
    IMO, there would need to be a restriction, sensewise AND balancewise.E.g., a 10 wide unit having 20 attacks against a single model would not only be overpowered but also highly unrealistic.
    Yeah I know... Pretty sure I/we had this conversation somewhere else...I agree. Some kind of restriction would be needed, but I don't think you can tie it to the amount of files already in combat. You could easily have situations where a horde formation only fights in two files even then. I don't really have a better suggestion, I'm just commenting :)
    And.... ?
    ...
    tieing to the number of files in contact IMO is the most balanced one.

    When does a horde only fight with one file?

    Even then, my proposal grants more attacks than the current horde rule (4 instead of 3 in total ;) )

    Rules Support

    Local Moderator


    Finally it's there: "TOTAL WAR - The Ninth Age - Realm of the Sylvan Elves"
  • I think you're right. I just find it a little weird because if you have only one model in contact you get 2 files and if you have 2 models you get 4. I would really like it to even out some more the less files you have in contact, to represent the rest of them "Lapping around".

    Maybe just add half of the files not in base contact? Would be a maximum of 5 if rounding up in the extreme cases.

    It could happen if 2 units 5 wide charge each other (or in the case of KoE units) and then a horde comes in the following round.
    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
  • It would in addition help all other formations that are not 5 wide or 10 wide.
    The actual horde rule, (I think it is a bad rule) only benefits 10 wide units, and totally ignores simply wider formations that would lap over the flank of the oponent. In 6th edition there were some rules for surrounding the enemy by winning rounds of combat, way to much micromanagment on modles placing, but it reflected the benefit of beeing wider than an oponent or making own formation wider during the combat.

    In my opinion acutal "horde" rule should be replaced with something like a simplified "surround" rule when one side is wide enough that there are models not in base contact to the enemy.
    My unit is 9 wide....fighting a unit 5 wide...with same base size...so 2 unengaged delivering half (rounded up) of unengaged models attacks.
    My unit is 6 wide fighting a chariot 50 mm, so I have 2 models unengaged, getting additional 1 model wide to fight. Fighting the same chariot with a 10 wide unit would bring 6 unengaged, and so 3 additional models wide for fight. (but NO additional 3rd rank to fight, because the actual horde rule would be replaced with it).

    And of course some unit hopping in combat reforms by abusing the reform rules should not be possible. Destrys immersion when a pegasus or any other single model unit suddenly swaps the position to the other flank.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    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 you think M8 Swiftstride guarantees getting the charge in, I recommend you try DOING it on a regular basis. It's nowhere near as reliable as you think.

    And getting flanks? Forget about it. Only the most inexperienced or stupid players will let heavy cav get a flank charge in a game with free reforms.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    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 you think M8 Swiftstride guarantees getting the charge in, I recommend you try DOING it on a regular basis. It's nowhere near as reliable as you think.
    And getting flanks? Forget about it. Only the most inexperienced or stupid players will let heavy cav get a flank charge in a game with free reforms.
    Free? You mean 20pts :D
  • No, Vulcan is 100% correct on this point. As someone who makes heavy use of Underground ambush, so basically cheating in the movement phase, it is incredibly difficult to get a 2 face charge due to musicians, heck even without a musician you can still turn around, the wide angle required to obtain a flank charge is often offset by the fact that your opponent has the rest of his army to fill in those gaps, and block those charge lanes. So even when I can completely cheat the system and bypass all chaff and put my units in optimal locations for charging, it is incredibly difficult to actually pull off a simultaneous front and flank charge.

    So let's say you are talking about infantry where the average charge range is 11ish inches, so let's say you want your cav to be 15 inches away to push the odds of making that charge in your favor more than your opponents. That sounds like a rather reasonable scenario to me?

    Well how reasonable is the fact that those 2 units need to be OVER 21 inches apart at a distance of 15 inches, to prevent your opponent from reforming to put both into the same facing. That makes it pretty darn easy for an opponent to shut down such a dual charge. Can it be done? yes. Is any competent player going to put a meaningful block out in the wind with nothing in a 2 foot width that can chaff, or block one of those 2 charges? highly unlikely.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    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 you think M8 Swiftstride guarantees getting the charge in, I recommend you try DOING it on a regular basis. It's nowhere near as reliable as you think.
    And getting flanks? Forget about it. Only the most inexperienced or stupid players will let heavy cav get a flank charge in a game with free reforms.

    The only unit that's ever charged my (M7) cavalry in T9A was a monster with higher movement than them, and that was still me messing up (didn't realize it could take them, didn't realize it was so fast, both "my bad").


    As for getting flanks in: do people think that's supposed to be easy? A solid flank charge on a vulnerable target is the deathblow. You should have to work your buttocks off to get it, particularly when using troops that can react to a lack of opportunity by running away and conserving their points.

    OTOH, I've gotten plenty of them off. Usually by doing one of the following:

    1) Winning fights where they didn't expect it
    2) Hammer-and-Anvil
    3) Sacrificing something significant-ish to set it up
    4) Doing a good job of tying up a significant portion of their army
    5) more than one of the above


    Also, if it really *were* so hard to get flank charges with heavy cav., I'd expect there to be less resistance to removing lance formation... after all, it's biggest strength is stripping Steadfast with only 6 models, is it not?
  • New

    I might have somethings missunderstanded due to being non-english speaker, so I will try to sumarize how actual post combat reform works actually (not enought good player to try to emphatize if this could be a diferent way, just knowing if I understood it right or wrong):

    - You can just reform to be b2b with more miniatures than before, never less miniatures. So, if you are a 5 front block vs a 7 front block (same base size), you could go from 5 front to up to 10 front, but no to 4 or less. If other units are in b2b with those minis you could reduce your print.
    - If one enemy miniature is b2b with a miniature, it must remain b2b with a miniature at the end of the reform. This is a reference to the model as an individual entity, not being a reference to the number of models as a whole.
    - As long as it is possible, you must be b2b with the maxium amounth of enemy miniatures. A lonely character, as an example, must be placed facing 3 enemies, 1 directly b2b and 2 b2b due to touching its corners, but you can't place that character in the midle of 2 miniatures to be engaged just with 2 miniatures.
    - You do post combat reform one at each time for diferent units, so you can't leave enemy models which were engaged with you out of combat expecring to engage them with your next reform (because you can fail rhe L check, as example). This also prevents swaping 2 units (a giant b2b with models A, B & C and a wyvern engaged with models C, D & E can't reform to make wyvern engaged A, B & C and the giant engaged C, D & E).
    - Your models don't need to be b2b with the same models or the same amount of miniatures, as long as you don't break none of the former rules.
    - You can move up to 2 times your M in the reform. Even if you can't fly, you can move across your units (Ogres in the center and a tusker hunter in the right corner, the hunter can ve moved to the left corner). In this phace, a miniature with fly moves up to 2 times his Fly M or just the normal M?
    - Active player choses wich of the 2 players reforms first. That player does all reforms he cans/wants before the second one starts reforming.

    Did I get it right? I find it a little dense.

    Therefore, I think a term distinction could be made to clarify this kind of rules/writting: Miniature as being the reference as the countable term (a unit of 20 miniatures, a front of 5 miniatures) and model as each individual being miniature (musician model, b2b model...).

    Maybe with this specification we could save some of the most dense writting needed to understand properly this kind of rules, which are ambiguous.

    Thanks
  • New

    Okay, anyone who hasn't seen @oncebitten360s video on reform types should go watch it now. It's short, concise, and answers every question I've seen in this thread so far.

    To paraphrase him, at the end of each reform within a combat you check for two things:

    1) Do I have at least the same NUMBER of models in combat as I had before?
    2) Have I taken any characters from combat?

    Once you've completed all your reforms in a combat, you answer one final question:

    1) Does the enemy have the exact same models in combat?

    If you can answer "yes" to all of these, congrats, you have legally reformed.

    Advisory Board

    Resident Terminator


    The (Rat)Men of (Under)Talabheim!