|
|
Post by strutsagget on Aug 22, 2019 15:46:56 GMT
Just checking, I have seen people combat reform to change fronting to bring its back into combat(tail upgrades/bonuses).
Is it possible to reform so both units in combat face each others sides?
Let say I charge my opponents rear or side. Win combat but my opponents unit doesn’t break. I then see an even bigger danger and want my front to face it. If I combat reform first it would reform my rear/side is in combat with my opponents rear/side and my front facing the next upcoming danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by crownprinceimrik on Aug 22, 2019 16:11:51 GMT
Technically, yeah. It's a really weird situation, but there is no rule saying you cannot combat reform to change facing away from the enemy. I actually had a similar situation in a game a few days ago. I had a Frostheart engaging some Temple Guard and a Star Dragon plus some cavalry getting ready to charge the Temple Guard next turn. So the Temple Guard reformed to have their side facing the Frosty and their front ready to receive the incoming Dragon and cavalry. We had to look it up, but the combat reform rules don't prohibit you from turning, as long as the models that were in combat before are still in combat after the reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 22, 2019 21:16:16 GMT
Strictly speaking, there is such a rule - at least if there is a command group.
BRB p. 92: "Any models that make up a unit's command group must be placed in the front rank of the unit, unless there is not enough room for them to fit. Where this happens, as many command group models as possible must be placed in the front rank and any remaining models are placed in the rank behind.
If the unit changes formation then the command group automatically pushes its way back to the front. Accordingly, when a unit reforms, the models of the unit's command group must be repositioned into the unit's new front rank as described above (regardless of the distance)."
This contradicts with the combat reform requirement that (BRB p. 55) "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."
The only way to avoid this contradition is not to reform. That said, the consequences of this in other situations may seem too restrictive, and if you and your opponent agree, feel free to play it otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by crownprinceimrik on Aug 22, 2019 21:48:57 GMT
Isn't that always going to be a bit contradicted, though? I didn't think the command group really counted as unique models in that case since they cannot be targeted separately.
For example if you have a unit of 20 models in a 5x4 formation that is engaged to the flank, before the reform you have 4 non-command models in combat. You want to turn the unit to face the enemy, simply reform 5x4 facing the enemy. You now have 2 non-command models in combat and 3 command models. That took two non-command models out of combat. Does that mean that reform is not legal? That seems a bit bizarre, I have always just thought that a Spearman was a Spearman for the purposes of that rule, regardless of if it was a standard bearer, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 22, 2019 22:27:20 GMT
Well, the Champion, for one, can be targeted separately, and according to the combat reform rules, it is not the overall number of R&F models that must remain in base contact, but the actual models. In the example you give, there is still the possibility to reform while adhering to the RAW, but it is true that you would not be able to retain the 5x4 formation. That is why I said that it may seem too restrictive.
|
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Sept 19, 2019 17:40:36 GMT
Those wonderfully comprehensive GW rules strike again...
|
|
