|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2018 16:52:45 GMT
There is more to Combat Reform than just bringing in more models into CC. But before we elaborate, we must first look at the rules of Combat Reform themselves (BRB p. 55), since they are often misunderstood.
First of all, there is a necessary Erratum, without which the rule cannot be played. Since the first update version in 2010, the text of the third paragraph now reads (changes in Italics).
BRB p. 55 (updated to Official Update Version 1.9):
A combat reform is essentially a standard reform (page 14), save for the fact that the centre point of the reformed unit does not have to stay in the same place. The most common usage of a combat reform is to allow the unit to turn to face its enemy (if attacked in the flank or rear), although it can also be used to bring more models into the fight by increasing the unit's frontage. There are two special restrictions on a combat reform, however — it cannot be used to get a model (friend or foe) out of base contact with the enemy if it was in contact before the reform was made was made, and the unit may not reform in such a way as to contact a different facing on any enemy unit it is in contact with. The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Aug 27, 2018 17:52:52 GMT
So, it can be used to bring itself into contact with another unit with this reform, but cannot change the facing if it is in contact with units on two different fronts? Is that what this last little bit is saying? The wording is confusing. It kinda sounds like it's contradicting with the earlier part of the statement.
I also suppose that a reform that would bring another enemy unit into contact, wouldn't be considered a charge, but perhaps only serve to take a potential charge away from your enemy, in their next turn? That, and any potential CR that could come of it.
I may be way off on this.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Aug 27, 2018 18:22:59 GMT
What I wonder is what is meant with the enemy. Is that the full unit or the model or any model of the enemy army?
May I move a model in CR to face another model as long as both models are still in the fight?
Edit: I meant move model.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2018 18:32:21 GMT
mottdon : No, it does not mean that. You cannot be in btb contact with an enemy, unless you have charged/were charged by that enemy. You are right, though, they could have been clearer. The English version of the BRB uses "enemy" both for "enemy unit" and "enemy model," which leads to confusion. The context requires here to read "enemy model," and this is confirmed by non-English versions (which are often more precise), like the French version: Cette reformation ne peut pas servir à sortir des figurines (amies ou ennemies) du contact avec l’ennemi si elles étaient au contact avant la reformation. Elles peuvent par contre se retrouves au contact d’autres figurines ennemies.
which translates into: This reform cannot be used to get models (friend or foe) out of base contact with the enemy, if they were in contact before the reform. However, they can find themselves in contact with different enemy models. Or the German version: "Sie darf nicht verwendet werden, um ein Modell (Freund oder Feind) aus dem Basekontakt mit gegnerischen Modellen zu bewegen, wenn es sich vor der Nahkampf-Neuformierung noch in Basekontakt befunden hat. Das Modell kann sich nach der Neuformierung allerdings durchaus mit einem anderen Modell in Basekontakt befinden, wenn du dies bevorzugst"
which translates into: It cannot be used to get a model (friend or foe) out of base contact with enemy models, if it still was in base contact before the combat reform. However, the model can after the reform definitely be in base contact with a different enemy model, if you prefer. So, to answer strutsagget 's question: it is a different enemy model of the enemy unit your unit is in close combat with.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Aug 27, 2018 19:20:52 GMT
Multi-lingual. I am getting smarter just be being here.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Aug 27, 2018 20:26:42 GMT
So, just to be clear, let me pose a hypothetical situation.
Your opponent has one unit of Empire Spearmen, 5 wide, and 6 deep. It also has two units of Greatswords that are 5 wide by 2 deep, on either side, 1" away. The Spearmen unit is engaged by a unit of 50 Night Goblins, 5 wide by 10 deep. After the Goblin player's turn of CC, he wants to make a combat reform so that he moves to horde formation, effectively bringing the two units of Greatswords into CC with the Night Goblins and preventing a counter-charge into his flanks.
So under the above rule, this would be considered to be an illegal move?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2018 21:11:46 GMT
Yes. You can allow some flexibility with the 1" rule, since "this rule is "purely for clarity", but actual contact would be overstretching that flexibility.
BRB p. 16: However, charging is the only way for units to reach close combat with the foe. If you want to attack an enemy then you must charge him - you simply cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge.
BRb p. 22: There is one important principle that you should always keep in mind when charging: under no circumstances can a unit use its charge move to move into contact with an enemy it has not declared a charge against.
However, trust GW to muddle the issue. As I have poited out before in a couple of other threads, there is this FAQ:
Official Update Version 1.9, p 6: Q: If I can only maximise the number of models fighting by contacting another enemy unit, must I declare a charge against that unit? (p20) A: No
However, this is an FAQ, not an Erratum. Since this FAQ does not clarify, but brazenly contradicts the BRB, it is null and void.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Aug 27, 2018 22:15:58 GMT
This would be considered to be an illegal move? Yes. Highly illegal. I mean, illegal is the wrong word... It's just impossible given the physics of the game. I would take it as "Any reform you try to do simply can't bring a new unengaged unit into combat. Ever". That said, I have seem uber-complicated combats. Think, 3 or 4 layers deep. It's a geometric puzzle of rectangles. I recall one sprawling mess of a combat that had a single round of combat that resulted in not just one but two units wiped out. Meaning, a unit that had been engaged in combat to no longer exists. For one of those units, they had been slaughtered by an enemy unit charging them in the rear. That said enemy unit was then "stranded" but otherwise able to reform to engage B2B with yet another unit involved in the same combat. Although they had not been directly touching, the two units were involved in the same combat, and that contiguous combat persisted despite the wiped out unit that led to a gap. I don't recall how we handled it. I think we D6'ed it... on a 4+ they could.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2018 22:31:10 GMT
No need to D6 it: this is covered by "No more foes":
BRB p. 61: In multiple combats it can sometimes happen that at the end of a round of close combat some units are no longer engaged with any enemy unit (normally because the unit they were engaged with has been completely destroyed). Such units are out of combat for all purposes and can move normally from then on. Any combat result points that unit would have added to the fight for wounds inflicted are still counted for the fight's overall combat resolution, but other bonuses, such as standards, charges and so on. are not. Note that such a unit cannot cancel out steadfast in an enemy.
The same principle applies here: a unit can only be in CC with an enemy unit, if it has charged/been charged by that enemy unit.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 28, 2018 11:28:56 GMT
Combat reform: tactical uses (continued)
To tackle another misconception: there is a recurring, but incorrect argument that, because a combat reform is “essentially a standard reform,” you are only allowed options A, B or C in the diagram on BRB p. 14. This is incorrect for a standard reform, and even more so for a combat reform: - The diagram does not limit the written standard reform rule itself. While A, B and C are examples of what you can do in a standard reform, that does not mean they are the only things you can do in a standard reform. For instance, you can use a standard reform to change the position of the command group and/or characters within the unit, without moving the unit from its current position.
- For a combat reform, the diagram is completely irrelevant, because, contrary to a standard reform, the centre point of the unit can change, indeed, in most cases must change. And a flexible centre point allows you far more options for reforming a unit.
Furthermore, it is very important to note that if both sides can make a combat reform, the winner of a roll-of decides who goes first. Going first is not always the best. Depending on the intent of the combat reform, you may well need to go last to achieve your goal! Finally, note the following additional restrictions: BRB p. 14: Rememer that none of the models in the unit can move more than twice their Movement rate. BRB p. 55: If a unit is engaged to more than one facing (say to the front and one flank), it cannot make combat reforms.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Aug 28, 2018 13:07:37 GMT
No need to D6 it: this is covered by "No more foes": BRB p. 61: In multiple combats it can sometimes happen that at the end of a round of close combat some units are no longer engaged with any enemy unit (normally because the unit they were engaged with has been completely destroyed). Such units are out of combat for all purposes and can move normally from then on. Any combat result points that unit would have added to the fight for wounds inflicted are still counted for the fight's overall combat resolution, but other bonuses, such as standards, charges and so on. are not. Note that such a unit cannot cancel out steadfast in an enemy. The same principle applies here: a unit can only be in CC with an enemy unit, if it has charged/been charged by that enemy unit. Yeah, we looked up that exact rule. But, the debate at that time was between "engaged" and "in B2B contact". --I said the unit was in B2B contact but not engaged. --My opponents said, you're silly, that's rules lawyering. ... --I even remember someone pointing to that parenthetical with the word "normally" in it as a point of interest --They also said, the unit completed a charge this turn, so it counts as reaching combat; that was a point with no bearing within the rules as written, but it made sense... They didn't charge that unit, they charged into the overall combat. It's a swirling melee of brawling anyway, right? The BRB even describes combat as a chaotic swirling mess that we're just trying to represent with cute rectangles. --It also opened up the ball of wax on IF that unit (the stranded one) could overrun. The whole debate was good natured. A classic exercise of letter of the law versus intent and expected real life value. After 15 minutes, we were re-hashing the same points over and over back and forth, so 4+ it. That's how we play. I'm pretty non-confrontational, especially when the rules felt fuzzy to me. I also really wanted to get the game (which started at about 11:00 AM) moving so we could still make it to the pub for a drink before 11:00 PM.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Aug 28, 2018 13:09:37 GMT
BRB p. 55: If a unit is engaged to more than one facing (say to the front and one flank), it cannot make combat reforms. I often forget this one, but you are 100% right. Totally valid. +5 points, Ravenclaw. The "engaged on two flanks" clause doesn't cover "Make Way" for characters though, right? A character within a unit that is engaged to more than one facing can still move freely?
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Aug 28, 2018 13:25:07 GMT
BRB p. 55: If a unit is engaged to more than one facing (say to the front and one flank), it cannot make combat reforms. I often forget this one, but you are 100% right. Totally valid. +5 points, Ravenclaw. The "engaged on two flanks" clause doesn't cover "Make Way" for characters though, right? A character within a unit that is engaged to more than one facing can still move freely? That's the way I understand it, as long as it doesn't take him out of base contact with the unit he was originally in b2b with.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 28, 2018 14:42:29 GMT
wilsonthenarc Regarding the question of overrun: if the unit had charged that turn, it could indeed overrun. Do not forget: "Unless otherwise stated, all the rules for a one-on-one close combat also apply to a combat with multiple units on each side." Including, of course, the rule that you cannot be in base contact with an enemy you have not charged or were charged by. Even in multiple CC, a unit cannot be in btb=CC with an enemy it has not charged or was charged by.
Regarding "Make Way": this is a different rule all together. "Make Way" happens at the start of the combat, and it matters not if the unit is being engaged from several facings - only that the character is not in btb with an enemy model. As we shall see in more detail later, during a combat reform, a character can move position, as long as he himself and all the other models that were in CC remain in CC. However, if his unit is engaged from different facings, the unit cannot reform, and neither, quite obviously, can the character.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Aug 29, 2018 0:45:41 GMT
Of course, the overrun move must me made straight ahead, and if there are no opponents directly in front of your unit...
|
|