|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 19, 2018 8:36:55 GMT
The subject is combat reform. Given that you cannot reduce the number of models in CC, there will be few situations where you can combat reform into a conga line. The only one I can think of is clipping units:  If Blue can reform first, he can adopt a conga line. Red reforming in response cannot bring more Blue models into CC. If the Blue model contacting Red is a champion, then Red can only attack the champion, and any wounds inflicted will not overflow on the unit. Edit: That is, of course, assuming that all Red models in CC have the same initiative. If Red can reform first, then he can prevent the conga line. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 3, 2018 20:37:44 GMT
Another issue in-between the combat reform of whole units and individual models relates to a combat reform in order to face the enemy and the position of the command group. Regarding the position of the command group, BRB p. 95 states: "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)." In 6.1, Blue has been charged in the flank, and wants to reform to face the enemy.  However, reforming like 6.2 would violate the special restriction that "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." Therefore, if Blue wants to change his facing, he must bring in more models ( i.e. the command group) into btb with the enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 4, 2018 16:34:31 GMT
Great example. Can you look at similar examples with, say, units of Monstrous Cavalry? i.e. a unit of 6 DemiGryphs fighting a unit of 30 elf (20mm x 20mm) ranked infantry. I have seen a lot of those over the ages -- And I am sure I've done 1 or 2 wrong on both sides  |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 4, 2018 21:18:25 GMT
Are you referring now specifically to changing face or more generally?
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 12, 2018 9:20:53 GMT
Combat Reform: tactical uses (continued)
The inverse is also true. In 6.4, Blue is about to be charged in the flank and thus disrupted. If he could change facing as in 6.5, he would avoid being disrupted, and would end up steadfast as well. However, this combat reform would be illegal, as it would force the command group out of combat. 
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 30, 2018 17:48:28 GMT
We now turn to the subject of combat reform and indivivual models within the units. A combat reform can be used to move models elsewhere, provided all the models (friend and foe) that were in CC remain in CC. This follows from the last sentence of the combat reform rule on p. 55: "The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish."
There are two important factors to take into account: timing and footprint.
1. Timing: while for the combat reform of an entire unit it is better to be able to reform first, we will see that now it is better to go second. So, if you are planning to execute a combat reform to change the postion of the entire unit AND individual models, these may be conflicting, and you may not be able to achieve both aims. If, therefore, both sides want to execute a combat reform, but you win the roll off, you must choose to go first or second according to the priority of your aims.
2. Footprint: the combat reform of individual models usually involves characters which may have a different base size. Of course, they need to have the same footrpint as 2 or more models of the unit; otherwise they need to be placed at the edge of the unit. A different base size can facilitate or hamper achieving the aim of the combat reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 31, 2018 9:15:16 GMT
A combat reform can be used to attack or evade specific models. In 7.1, the Blue Wizard Lord is in btb with a Blender Lord. With lots of luck, he has survived the Red fury. Blue now uses a combat reform to move the WL away from the BL, and thus increase his chances of survival (7.2).  However, if both players want to combat reform, Blue must execute his reform last, because, otherwise, Red could simply move the BL back into btb with the WL, during his combat reform. |
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 31, 2018 12:54:42 GMT
^^^This!
I don't know about everybody else, but this is one of the most commonly used Combat Reform moves that I use.
Either way, on both sides, I want to go last. So I would make them go first...
Typically, as Tomb Kings...
If I am the Wizard Lord, I run away and hide. Take my chances with the R&F dudes.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 1, 2018 9:43:37 GMT
Blue could decrease the WL vulnerability a bit further by sliding sideways (7.3), so that only one Red model remains in btb. Of course, two can play at that. In 7.4, Red was able to combat reform last and has maximised the attacks against the WL.  |
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Nov 1, 2018 12:40:43 GMT
Can't you just leave that poor Wizard Lord alone?
She's just trying to feed her family.
Come to work, do her job, and go home at night.
Honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 1, 2018 21:15:09 GMT
I was talking about a Wizard Lord, not a Wizard Lady. The Empire frowns upon gender-bending. Indeed, it is quite heretical. Because it is you, and i am sure you have made an honest mistake, I will not flag this to the Inquisition. It is true that there are a few female wizards (let alone Wizard Ladies), but it is very rare occurrence. That said, the Jade College did have Tochter Grünfeld as "Matriarch Magister."
|
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Nov 2, 2018 0:32:58 GMT
My mistake.
The Tomb Kings are hip to both genders.
Lybaras was the OG gender equality city of Nehekhara...
Then Nagash killed 'urryone.
No need to bring the Inquisition into this.
Pray, don't tell Mr. Matthias Thulmann. He's a toughie.
|
|
