PDA

View Full Version : Combat reform movement



Dark_Mage99
24-08-2014, 16:34
Can a lone model or a unit combat reform in order to "move" while in combat?

For eg.

A lone cold one knight is engaged with a daemon prince in the front, dead centre. But there is another unit wanting to charge it's front as well.

Can the cold one knight combat reform over to the edge of the daemon's base in order to allow the unit a better charge?

Mr_Rose
24-08-2014, 16:44
As long as the rules about maximising the number of models in contact and about not removing models from combat are both observed, sure.

MOMUS
24-08-2014, 21:46
Corner to corner is still contact.

So two single models could theoretically move like a pair of crabs across the table by each reforming in turn corner to corner. :yes:

Dark_Mage99
24-08-2014, 21:47
Doesn't it break the reform rules though? It's not changing it's facing, and it's not rearranging it's formation... It's just sort of shimmying along.

And are you allowed to even move while you're in combat?

Josfer
25-08-2014, 13:18
By RAW the center of the unit has to stay the same, so no, you can't move to the edge. Following this single models that are not on a base with same width and heigth can't even rotate.

Relevant rules sections:

A combat reform is essentially a standard reform (page 14) save for the fact that it can be made even though the unit is in close combat. 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 is one special restriction 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. The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish.


REFORM
You can completely rearrange your unit, so that it is facing in any direction, by giving up all other movement and shooting.
A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once by means of a manoeuvre called a reform. The leader issues the order to adopt a new formation and the troops move to assume their new positions.
Keeping the centre point of the unit the same, arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish.

theunwantedbeing
25-08-2014, 13:36
By RAW the center of the unit has to stay the same, so no, you can't move to the edge. Following this single models that are not on a base with same width and heigth can't even rotate.

The FAQ says otherwise.

Josfer
25-08-2014, 13:40
Thanks for the reminder. It looked really odd but I only searched the FAQ for p. 14 and not for the combat reform. With the "charge character out of unit and not move but then shoot" question today, I thought I just got another thing completely wrong.


Page 55 – Combat Reform, Reforming From Victory.

Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to “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.”
Change “[...]is one special restriction[...]” to “[...]are two special restrictions[...]” and change “[...]was made[...]” to “[...]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[...]” in the second paragraph.

Dark_Mage99
25-08-2014, 22:48
But does this make the "shimmy" legal?

You still have to conform to the constraints of the reform, right? Ie. you can change facing or formation (the shimmy does neither).

Ravenar
26-08-2014, 06:55
Dark Mage,

Are you trying to advocate for this not to happen? The question seems to be answered several times. It seems to be a legal move.

Dark_Mage99
26-08-2014, 08:37
I'm not trying to advocate anything. The question hasn't been answered at all:

Is the shimmy a legal reform, because as far as I can see it's not actually a reform?

Josfer
26-08-2014, 10:15
It's not a legal reform, it's a legal battle reform. You may face in ANY direction and completely rearrange your troops even moving the centre of the unit as long as a model in base contact is still in base contact afterwards and you don't contact in a different facing you weren't in contact before.
Every restriction is met even if you just announce a reform and don't change anything at all.

Dark_Mage99
26-08-2014, 16:25
It's not a legal reform, it's a legal battle reform. You may face in ANY direction and completely rearrange your troops even moving the centre of the unit as long as a model in base contact is still in base contact afterwards and you don't contact in a different facing you weren't in contact before.
Every restriction is met even if you just announce a reform and don't change anything at all.

This is incorrect, though.

You don't need to keep the centre point the same, yes.

But you still need to reform. And the "shimmy" isn't a reform; it's a sideways move.

A reform can only do two things: change formation, and change facing. Since you can't change formation when your formation is one model, all you have left is to change facing. And this shimmy doesn't do that.

Josfer
26-08-2014, 18:00
Based on what?

Dark_Mage99
26-08-2014, 20:03
The rules for reforming.

Josfer
26-08-2014, 21:07
A reform can only do two things: change formation, and change facing. Since you can't change formation when your formation is one model, all you have left is to change facing.
Look at the FAQ, a combat reform can change the center of the unit.
And "change the facing" is a) neither a prerequisite for a reform, giving up moving and shooting is and b) you change to "any direction" which includes your original direction. It's like casting a pointless spell like earth blood on an already regenerating unit to get the wound from the lore attribute, which is too totally viable.

You asked, if it was legal, I told you how it's written, you might disagree with me, but then why ask?

Dark_Mage99
26-08-2014, 23:14
I know about the FAQ, but you're not reading what I'm writing:

A combat reform still has to be a reform (unit centre doesn't come into it), and this shimmy is a move, not a reform.

By your logic, you could march block my daemon prince and limit me to a normal move of 10. No problem, though, I can just reform 20 inches to the right anyway.

Do you see what I'm saying?

A lot of people do this shimmy, but in reality it's an illegal move.

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 01:29
By your logic, you could march block my daemon prince and limit me to a normal move of 10. No problem, though, I can just reform 20 inches to the right anyway.

:wtf:
nobody is saying that. I think you don't understand what the argument is...

Dark_Mage99
27-08-2014, 07:04
:wtf:
nobody is saying that. I think you don't understand what the argument is...

It appears I'm the only one who does understand what the argument is...

If you can move in combat, by "combat reforming" in order to shimmy along a model's base (an illegal reform because it's not a reform), then you must also be able to move in just the same way out of combat.

The only difference between a reform and a combat reform is the centre point rule.

But a single model is a single model, and the centre point will always be the same, even when you're not in combat. Therefore by the logic of this argument, you could well reform by shimmying in any direction you wanted out of combat (presumably up to double your movement, as per reform rules).

Do you see now how this is not a reform? If you can't do it out of combat, you can't do it in combat.

The reform rules allow you to change your formation, but a single model can't change its formation.

Just because it's in combat doesn't mean it can ignore the rules.

furrie
27-08-2014, 07:33
By your logic, you could march block my daemon prince and limit me to a normal move of 10. No problem, though, I can just reform 20 inches to the right anyway.
No, because when your not in combat a reform can't change the center position of the unit. So when you reform 20 inches to the right you change the center position of your daemon prince.

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 08:59
When a unit (comprising of a single model) is in combat I can reform and change the center point of the unit.
Moving from one corner to the other is changing the center point of my unit.

thesoundofmusica
27-08-2014, 09:25
When a unit (comprising of a single model) is in combat I can reform and change the center point of the unit.
Moving from one corner to the other is changing the center point of my unit.

You are ALLOWED to change the center point, but is solely changing the center point considered a combat reform? That is the question.

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 10:24
Is soley changing the facing considered a combat reform?
In a combat reform you are ALLOWED to change the center, change facing, change character position and change formation*. You are not forced to do any, you can choose to do one or all if you want.

*as long as you follow the rules about not having less peeps in combat or dragging characters out if already engaged etc etc.

Josfer
27-08-2014, 15:53
Ok, at least I understand what Dark_Mage99 means now.
And as usual, GWs rules aren't clear in this point.
If you have this situation

AAA
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB

and reform to

AAA
_BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

you made a legal reform and a lot of models have moved. The center point of the unit has moved a lot too.

If you have this situation

DRAGON
_XY___

with the XY being a chariot that is flanked on the right now, which version can the chariot now reform to

DRAGON
X_____
Y_____

DRAGON
_X____
_Y____

DRAGON
__X___
__Y___

DRAGON
___X__
___Y__

DRAGON
____X_
____Y_

DRAGON
_____X
_____Y

?

Every prerequisite given by the rules is met (changed facing, units still in B2B, centre point isn't the same) by every version and there's nothing, that you have to cover as much of your former place as possible or even touch a spot on the ground you touched before

hdctambien
27-08-2014, 16:19
Is soley changing the facing considered a combat reform?
In a combat reform you are ALLOWED to change the center, change facing, change character position and change formation*. You are not forced to do any, you can choose to do one or all if you want.

*as long as you follow the rules about not having less peeps in combat or dragging characters out if already engaged etc etc.

"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 say in the same place"

So what is "a standard reform"?

"Keeping the centre point of the unit the same, arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish"

Alter that a bit because this is a combat reform:

"Arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish"

Dark_Mage99 is saying that a single model cannot be arranged into a "new formation" because it is a single model that can only be in a single formation. The only legal reform a single model can do it "face whichever direction you wish"

If you're reforming you have to do 'something'. If you rearrange from 1 rank and 1 file to 1 rank and 1 file you are not in a "new formation" you are in the same formation.

Can a single model "rearrange into a new formation" simply by changing it's centre point? Or is the formation defined by the number of ranks and files? Or must it as least change the direction it is facing?

Before:
AAAAAAAAA
_B________

After:
AAAAAAAAA
_______B__


I guess the same goes for a non-single model too:

Before:
AAAAAA__
___BBBBBB

After:

AAAAA
BBBBBB

Unit B only changed it's centre point. Is that a legal combat reform?

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 17:10
I would say according to the rules both of those examples are valid combat reforms.

When you are able to make a combat reform through test or otherwise you don't have to do anything, if I test to see if I can reform and then I am able to but decide against it would you enforce a reform of some description because I didn't 'do something'.?

Mr_Rose
27-08-2014, 17:18
Can a single model "rearrange into a new formation" simply by changing it's centre point? Or is the formation defined by the number of ranks and files? Or must it as least change the direction it is facing?

Before:
AAAAAAAAA
_B________

After:
AAAAAAAAA
_______B__
This example is illegal as it fails to satisfy the other conditions on a combat reform; specifically, it removed some of the models in unit A from combat. The special case of two single models, however…


I guess the same goes for a non-single model too:

Before:
AAAAAA__
___BBBBBB

After:

AAAAA
BBBBBB

Unit B only changed it's centre point. Is that a legal combat reform?
Yes.

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 18:39
Hang on is that one unit called A or a unit made of 6 models called A?

Josfer
27-08-2014, 18:53
The second version is legal anyways (in my opinion). It doesn't matter if A is a single model or a unit of multiple models and it doesn't matter if B is a single model or a unit of multiple models.
The first version is legal if A is a single model and illegal if A is a unit of multiple models as Mr_Rose said.

Dark_Mage99
28-08-2014, 13:01
When a unit (comprising of a single model) is in combat I can reform and change the center point of the unit.
Moving from one corner to the other is changing the center point of my unit.

This is precisely where you're mistaken.

The rules say a combat reform is the same as a reform, the only difference being the centre point doesn't have to stay in the same place.


"Moving from one corner to the other is changing the center point my unit"


Yes. But it's still not a reform.

Just because you've changed your centre point, doesn't automatically mean you've reformed. To reform, you have to change formation or change facing. You are allowed to change your centre, but only through the process of actually reforming.

Moving from one corner to the other is simply moving, not reforming.

Josfer's chariot vs dragon example I would be completely fine with, assuming it didn't remove models from combat, since it is changing its facing (which is a reform).

The single model shimmy, however, is not a reform. If the chariot had been fighting to the front all along, it couldn't shimmy.

MOMUS
28-08-2014, 14:15
So what's the difference between a single model making a combat reform and only changing it's center point and a 25 man unit making a combat reform and only changing it's center point?

So do you play a multi model unit can shimmy when against a single model but the single model can't shimmy back?

Josfer
28-08-2014, 15:11
This is precisely where you're mistaken.
The rules say a combat reform is the same as a reform, the only difference being the centre point doesn't have to stay in the same place.
"Moving from one corner to the other is changing the center point my unit"
Yes. But it's still not a reform.
Why? The rules don't say "you have to change the facing to any facing not the original", it says "to ANY facing". So I can make a reform by stating "This unit reforms, I chose the facing it already has by giving up all other movement and shooting". And in a combat reform I can chose my original facing without the centre point having to be exactly the same.

hdctambien
28-08-2014, 15:50
Why? The rules don't say "you have to change the facing to any facing not the original", it says "to ANY facing". So I can make a reform by stating "This unit reforms, I chose the facing it already has by giving up all other movement and shooting". And in a combat reform I can chose my original facing without the centre point having to be exactly the same.

The rule actually says that you "arrange the unit into a NEW FORMATION of as many ranks as your please, facing whichever direction you wish"

If you reform from "1 rank facing north" to "1 rank facing north" is that a *new formation*? Or is that exactly the same formation?


So do you play a multi model unit can shimmy when against a single model but the single model can't shimmy back?

I think he's saying that a single model *can* shimmy if it also changes its facing. The face-changing being the reform, and the FAQ allowing that reform to change its centre point. Otherwise, if the single model just moves without chaging its facing or changing the number of ranks then it did not perform a reform... it just moved.

Josfer
28-08-2014, 16:05
BRB p. 14:

The leader issues the order to adopt a new formation and the troops move to assume their new positions.
They move to assume their new position.

And a new formation isn't necessarily a different formation. I got a new phone...it's the same model as my old phone.
And it's even a different formation as the old formation "near the left claw of the dragon" is changed into the new formation "near the right claw of the dragon".

What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but the champion (not in combat) switches place with a RnF guy (also not in combat)?
What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but one RnF guy switches place with another RnF guy (both not in combat)?
What if the charioteers on a chariot switch places while the chariot stays the same (both in B2B with the same models)?

Ruleswise none of those above are different. Every one of them is a legal reform.

Or look at this example:
_____X_____
AAAAA_____

_____X_____
_____AAAAA

The unit of 5 As just shimmied to the right. Totally legal.

MOMUS
28-08-2014, 17:24
I think he's saying that a single model *can* shimmy if it also changes its facing. The face-changing being the reform, and the FAQ allowing that reform to change its centre point. Otherwise, if the single model just moves without chaging its facing or changing the number of ranks then it did not perform a reform... it just moved.




Well ill I wouldn't like you to put words in darkmage's mouth but if this what he's saying then....

1.
GGGGG
GGGGG
____S_
____V_

my scarvet cowboy is in combat with a monster
you would let me reform to:

2.
GGGGG
GGGGG
SV____

And then:


GGGGG
GGGGG
______S
______V

But not from 1. To 3. ?

thesoundofmusica
28-08-2014, 18:34
None of those are legal reforms.

MOMUS
28-08-2014, 19:35
Oh I get it hang on I'll edit...

hdctambien
28-08-2014, 20:24
BRB p. 14:

They move to assume their new position.

And a new formation isn't necessarily a different formation. I got a new phone...it's the same model as my old phone.
And it's even a different formation as the old formation "near the left claw of the dragon" is changed into the new formation "near the right claw of the dragon".

What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but the champion (not in combat) switches place with a RnF guy (also not in combat)?
What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but one RnF guy switches place with another RnF guy (both not in combat)?
What if the charioteers on a chariot switch places while the chariot stays the same (both in B2B with the same models)?

Ruleswise none of those above are different. Every one of them is a legal reform.

Or look at this example:
_____X_____
AAAAA_____

_____X_____
_____AAAAA

The unit of 5 As just shimmied to the right. Totally legal.

The sentence before the one you quoted also says: "A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once..."

So the rule refers to a reform as "rearranging its formation" and "arranging the unit into a new formation". The sentence you quoted is more fluffly than rulesy but it basically says that when the rearranging of formation happens, models move. It's almost a tautology.

If you understand the word "new" as it is defined by ... google to mean "not existing before" then the phrase "new formation" means a formation that didn't exist before. It follows that a reformed unit should be in a formation that it was not in before the reform. Ie, you cannot reform into the same formation.


And it's even a different formation as the old formation "near the left claw of the dragon" is changed into the new formation "near the right claw of the dragon".

No. The formation didn't change. Only the position changed. That's not a reform. That's a movement.


What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but the champion (not in combat) switches place with a RnF guy (also not in combat)?

That is not a reform. That is called "Make Way" and is described on page 100.


What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but one RnF guy switches place with another RnF guy (both not in combat)?

Does it pass the reform litmus test from page 14?

1. Was the unit rearranged into a new formation of as many ranks as you please? - The number of ranks didn't change
or 2. was the unit rearranged into a new formation facing any direction you please? - The unit didn't change facing.

The formation of a unit does not care about the individual models. The formation is "a 5x3 block of models" It doesn't matter which model is in which spot and swapping models between spots does not change the formation. Nobody care's if the model in left corner of your unit is Frank or Bob, as long as they are both Swordmasters.


What if the charioteers on a chariot switch places while the chariot stays the same (both in B2B with the same models)?[\QUOTE]

Chariots and their crew are treated as a single model (page 86) Switching the placement of the characters on the chariot is not a reform. It's not anything. It's just a modeling decision.


[QUOTE]
Or look at this example:
_____X_____
AAAAA_____

_____X_____
_____AAAAA

The unit of 5 As just shimmied to the right. Totally legal.


That's pretty much the exact scenario that I postulated. Is that a legal reform? I've done it before, but now I wonder if it is legal.

Mr_Rose said it's illegal because:


it removed some of the models in unit A from combat.

I believe what he is saying is that if you draw it out like this:

_____X_____
ABCDE_____

_____X_____
_____ABCDE

Then X took model E out of combat, and moved model A and B into combat. I *think* that if all of the models are exactly the same (ie, it is a unit of 5 Skeletons) then it's fine. But maybe I'm wrong there, maybe it does mean that you cannot remove any specific model from combat, even if you replace it with the exact same model somewhere else in the unit.

Furthermore, this "shimmy" does not change the number of ranks or the facing of the unit. So that is where I start to question if it is a reform. If neither the ranks nor the facing changed, then I think it fails the litmus test of "is it a reform"

Here's where it can get a little tricky. What if this is your unit. 8 models in 2 ranks:

AAAAA
_AAA_

is this a reform?

AAAAAAA
___A____

The number of ranks did not change, but it sure looks like a reform to me. This is the type of case where, in combat, the "you can move the centre point" rule comes into play:

BBBB____
___AAAAA
____AAA_

Could reform to:

_BBBB_
_AAAAAAAA

By bringing all of the 2nd rank into the front rank and sticking them all on the left side of the unit. Normally a reform would have to equally distribute those models on both sides of the unit and ALSO slide the unit back half an inch in order to keep the centre point in the same place.

Josfer
28-08-2014, 22:04
None of those are legal reforms.
Can we get an argument for this statement? Or should we guess what you mean in which case I guess "I flipped a coin and it came up with not legal" which is nonsense.


The sentence before the one you quoted also says: "A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once..."
Yes it CAN do so, not it MUST do so.


If you understand the word "new" as it is defined by ... google
Better take wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/new
"Current (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/current) or later (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/later), as opposed to former (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/former)."
Yes, the new formation is the current formation.


No. The formation didn't change. Only the position changed. That's not a reform. That's a movement.
No it's not. Nothing in the rules state this.


That is not a reform. That is called "Make Way" and is described on page 100.
Wrong. You can only "Make Way" to get a character into combat and both aren't in combat as stated.


Does it pass the reform litmus test from page 14?
Yes, because "1. Was the unit rearranged into a new formation of as many ranks as you please? - The number of ranks didn't change
or 2. was the unit rearranged into a new formation facing any direction you please? - The unit didn't change facing." is made up by you and not the litmus test from page 14. The only requirement for a reform is that you give up all movement or shooting. If those sentences with "can" would imply "has to", then you would have to change the facing ALWAYS to a different one, even if you just want to rearrange your troops and you have to ALWAYS rearrange your troops although it's impossible for single models as you state.

If your litmus test was accurate going from 5*4 to 10*2 would have to include a change in facing, so that in combat your models would now have the enemy in its flank if it was in the front before. If you didn't change the facing and just reformed, does it pass your litmus test?
1. Was the unit rearranged into a new formation of as many ranks as you please? - The number of ranks did change
2. was the unit rearranged into a new formation facing any direction you please? - The unit didn't change facing.
NO.
The "OR" is totally randomly inserted by you, because in all the sentences is an "AND" in the rules.


Chariots and their crew are treated as a single model (page 86) Switching the placement of the characters on the chariot is not a reform. It's not anything. It's just a modeling decision.
Based on imaginary rules made by you? It's a unit and I rearrange it and I give up movement and shooting. Tadaa, reform.


I believe what he is saying is that if you draw it out like this:

_____X_____
ABCDE_____

_____X_____
_____ABCDE

Then X took model E out of combat, and moved model A and B into combat. I *think* that if all of the models are exactly the same (ie, it is a unit of 5 Skeletons) then it's fine. But maybe I'm wrong there, maybe it does mean that you cannot remove any specific model from combat, even if you replace it with the exact same model somewhere else in the unit.
Treat it like this:
_____X_____
ABCDE_____

_____X_____
_____EDABC

You rearranged the unit, you didn't change the facing (which you don't have to), you didn't change the ranks (which you don't have to), you gave up movement and shooting (which you have to), you didn't keep the center of the unit the same (which you don't have to in a combat reform). Perfectly legal.


Furthermore, this "shimmy" does not change the number of ranks or the facing of the unit. So that is where I start to question if it is a reform. If neither the ranks nor the facing changed, then I think it fails the litmus test of "is it a reform"
Only that it totally satisfies the rules and the litmus test is made up by you from imaginary rules.

If the rules would force you to change either one, it would say "If you do a reform, you have to rearrange your units..." and not "can rearrange your units...".
Look at the terror rules. Or the frenzy rules. Or the flee rules. Everywhere in this book is a "have/has to" or "must" if you are forced to do something. Or at least a "can't" if something is forbidden.

"It CAN change it's facing to ANY direction by..." Two words point at voluntarily, one doesn't and that is referring to giving up movement and shooting.

Mr_Rose
29-08-2014, 00:18
Can we get an argument for this statement? Or should we guess what you mean in which case I guess "I flipped a coin and it came up with not legal" which is nonsense.

This was explained earlier in the thread. There are two additional restrictions on combat reforms that replace the need to keep the centre the same. The one in question here is about removing models from combat.

hdctambien
29-08-2014, 01:14
Yes it CAN do so, not it MUST do so.


Your argument seesm to be that you can reform a unit by doing nothign to it. Something that is not supported by any rule.


If you move a unit 0" does it count as having moved?


If you say "I'm going to shoot you" and then don't roll any dice to hit, do you count as shooting?




Better take wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/new
"Current or later, as opposed to former."
Yes, the new formation is the current formation.



You're streching here. The new formation can be the current formation if the previous formation was different. Otherwise every unit is constantly reforming all the time.


In fact, that definition includes "as opposed to former". So the "new formation" must be opposed to some former formation.


Since that's the 3rd definition of "new" from wikitonary how about the 4th definition?


"Used to distinguish something established more recently"


or the 6th defintion:


"Refreshed, reinvigorated, reformed."


For something to be new it has to be in contrast to something else. It designates change. If there is no change, then there is nothing new.




"No. The formation didn't change. Only the position changed. That's not a reform. That's a movement.""


No it's not. Nothing in the rules state this.



Nothing in the rules state the opposite of what I said, either. The rules do not say that you can pick up a model and place it anywhere else on the table and call it a reform.


The rules say a reform is when your "Arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please"




"What if a multi model unit stays in the same formation, but the champion (not in combat) switches place with a RnF guy (also not in combat)?"


"That is not a reform. That is called "Make Way" and is described on page 100."


Wrong. You can only "Make Way" to get a character into combat and both aren't in combat as stated.



You got me, Champions can't make way. What rule are you using to swap the champion with another model again?


The rule for champions (on page 92) is: "If the unit changes formation then the command group automatically pushes its way back to the front. Accordingly, when a unit reforms, the modes of the unit's command group must be repositioned into the units new front rank"


So, the only way to swap the champion at all is to do a reform. However, this isn't a chicken and the egg problem. The reform comes first, and the champion moving to the front come second. You can't trigger a reform by moving a champion, you can only move a champion because the unit is reforming. You're going to need to reference a page number with a rule that states otherwise if you want to keep going with this example.




"Does it pass the reform litmus test from page 14?"


Yes, because "1. Was the unit rearranged into a new formation of as many ranks as you please? - The number of ranks didn't change



The thesis of my argument is that if a unit does not change the number of ranks then it does not count as a "new formation" and therefore it has not reformed.


Your counter argument continues to be: "Yeah huh, it does so count!". The reform rule (poorly written, of course) describes the process of reforming as ".. arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please". You are focusing on the phrase "as many ranks as you please" and I'm focusing on the phease "new formation". My argument is that the word "new" means that "as many ranks as you please" cannot include "the original number of ranks".


I'm not only interested in hearing the argument that says a 5x4 unit rearranged into exactly the same 5x4 unit is a NEW formation but later I proveded an example of a reform that does not change the number of ranks but does seem to reform the unit.



The unit didn't change facing." is made up by you and not the litmus test from page 14. The only requirement for a reform is that you give up all movement or shooting


I disagree. I would say that a side effect of a reform is that you give up all movement and shooting, but the REQUIREMENT is that you change the number of ranks. In which case, only changing the facing of the unit would not even qualify as a reform.



If your litmus test was accurate going from 5*4 to 10*2 would have to include a change in facing


Not really. I suppose I should have written the litmus test as "1. did ranks change OR 2. did facing change." I did not mean to imply that both the ranks must change and the facing must change.


However, you're going a good job at convincing me that simply changing facing should not qualify as a legitiamte reform.



The "OR" is totally randomly inserted by you, because in all the sentences is an "AND" in the rules.


I've copied this sentence out of the book so many times now... there is no "and" (there is also no "or")


Read it again:


"Keepign the centre point of the unit the same, arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish."


There is no "and" in there. However I do see your point. The comma does seem to indicate that if you only change your facing you have not quite reformed. It seems you are now arguing that the only true way to reform is to "arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please" and if you do that, you get the added bonus of being able to change your facing.



Based on imaginary rules made by you? It's a unit and I rearrange it and I give up movement and shooting. Tadaa, reform.


Technically, you're the one making up a rule that you can say you are doing something, not do it, but still count as doing it. Please remind me of the page that rule is written on.


I'm looking at the REFORM rule on page 14 and it is telling me that to reform you ahve to "arrange the unit into a new formation"




Treat it like this:
_____X_____
ABCDE_____


_____X_____
_____EDABC


You rearranged the unit, you didn't change the facing



Again, my bad. I thought we were on the same page talking about attempting to reform X against our opponents unit of ABCDE. In which case you cannot reform your opponents unit.


The question here is if you can reform your own single model and "not keep the centre point" to shimmy him accross your oppoents unit. Does that break the rule of taking him out of contact with E and putting him into conatact with A and B?



If the rules would force you to change either one, it would say "If you do a reform, you have to rearrange your units..." and not "can rearrange your units...".



"It CAN change it's facing to ANY direction by..." Two words point at voluntarily, one doesn't and that is referring to giving up movement and shooting.


Let me finish that conveniently ellipsied sentence for you:


"A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once by means of a menoeuver called a reform."


You CAN rearrange BY reforming.


Where is the rule that says you "can stay in exactly the same formation" by reforming?


I'm not even the one that brought this up in the first place. Heck, I've often reformed a unit by typewriting it across another unit to get more models into base contact (and not changing the number of ranks of the unit)


I've also watched someone at a tournament warp a single character from one corner of a unit (where it killed a mage) to the otehr corner of the unit (to kill another mage) by use of a reform


Since this has been brought up, and I've reread the rules I am now questioning if that's allowed. I am very interested in the rules references that show that this is a legal reform.


I don't think I'm making up rules. I'm just reading the rules that are written and applying them to situations. There are lots of wierdly written rules in the BRB that don't make sence.


Help me out here, don't just tell me how dumb I am.

thesoundofmusica
29-08-2014, 06:19
I havent read the actual errata/faq for "center must remain" in a while so I dont remember the exact wording.

But to me the rules for reform and combat reform seem to be like this:
Reform
Change facing and/or formation while keeping the unit center.
Combat reform
Same as above, remove requirement to keep unit center while not leaving any model who was previously in combat out of combat.

How does this allow units sliding along the enemy base?

Maybe the answer is in the exact wording of the faq/errata?

Arthain
29-08-2014, 21:40
Reform
Change facing and formation while keeping the unit center.


Fixed that for you. There's no OR in the BRB. So basically what you'r saying is that if I want to change my facing, I'm also forced to change my formation.

You'r saying, too, that this:
RRRRR
RRRRR
to
RRRRRRR
....RRR...
Is not a legal reform (As the formation still has 2 ranks, which is what the BRB speaks of, number of ranks)

Also are you saying that this reform (Dragon vs Lone Rider):
DRAGON
L
R (head on)

DRAGON
...........LR (now giving his flank to the dragon)

Is legal?

Then afterwards I can do this:

DRAGON
...........L
...........R (head on)

But not all in 1 go?

thesoundofmusica
29-08-2014, 22:07
If that is what the rule says then yes, but actually I was saying that I dont know the exact wording at this moment and cant really make that call :)

Edit: DarkMage the reform rule says that after a reform the unit can face any direction and have any formation... It doesnt really specify that something must have changed and that together with the "not keeping center" thing I think there isnt a case.
In the case of Momus examples these are still illegal reforms though since models are taken out of combat.

Arthain
29-08-2014, 22:10
To be fair you only mentioned the FAQ. The FAQ only waives the restriction of center being kept the same. Everything else is in BRB

hdctambien
29-08-2014, 23:17
Josfer posted both the relevant BRB rules and the FAQ on the first page of the thread.

Relevant rules sections:

A combat reform is essentially a standard reform (page 14) save for the fact that it can be made even though the unit is in close combat. 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 is one special restriction 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. The model can be in base contact with a different enemy at the end of the reform if you wish.



REFORM
You can completely rearrange your unit, so that it is facing in any direction, by giving up all other movement and shooting.
A unit of troops can change the direction in which it is facing and rearrange its formation all at once by means of a manoeuvre called a reform. The leader issues the order to adopt a new formation and the troops move to assume their new positions.
Keeping the centre point of the unit the same, arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please, facing whichever direction you wish.




Page 55 – Combat Reform, Reforming From Victory.

Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to “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.”
Change “[...]is one special restriction[...]” to “[...]are two special restrictions[...]” and change “[...]was made[...]” to “[...]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[...]” in the second paragraph.




So basically what you'r saying is that if I want to change my facing, I'm also forced to change my formation.

You'r saying, too, that this:
RRRRR
RRRRR
to
RRRRRRR
....RRR...
Is not a legal reform (As the formation still has 2 ranks, which is what the BRB speaks of, number of ranks)

According to the RAW, to reform you "arrange the unit into a new formation of as many ranks as you please," So depending on how you interpret "new formation" that reform may not be legal.

I sure does seem to me that reforming from

RRRRR
RRRRR

to

RRRRRRR
__RRR__

Should be a reform, but as you said the number of ranks did not change. However, did the "formation" change? I can't find in the BRB a definition of what a formation is.

Is a formation "the number of ranks" of a unit? If so, then both of those formations are the same. They are both 2 ranks. So it wouldn't be a reform.

Or is a formation "the number of ranks by the number of files"? In which case you would have reformed from a 5x2 into a 7x2. Since the formation changed, it would be a reform.

Either way you define a formation, what does it mean to change the formation of a single model's 1x1 unit? No matter what you do, it will always be 1x1. So, I think it can be argued that a single model cannot reform because it cannot change to a "new formation".

I'm not saying that you can or cannot reform a unit composed of a single mode. But I'm not sure I've found a rule that makes a single model, a 1x1 unit, able to change its formation.

And if a single model cannot reform, then it cannot take advantage of the FAQ ruling that allows it to change it's centre point and "shimmy" across an enemy in close combat.

So my questions to you all are:

1) What is a formation?

2) What constitutes changing into a "new formation"

3) Can a unit made up of a single model (a 1x1 formation) be rearranged?

Masque
30-08-2014, 10:32
1) What is a formation?

2) What constitutes changing into a "new formation"

3) Can a unit made up of a single model (a 1x1 formation) be rearranged?

Page 5 of the BRB:
"...all models in the unit must be arranged in a formation that consists of one or more horizontal lines, called ranks and a number of vertical lines, called files."

So, I'd say both ranks and files define the formation. It would seem you need to change ranks, files, or both to change formation. Now, as far as "rearranging" goes I would say that in a multi model unit simply moving a character from one corner to another without changing ranks or files is a different "arrangement". Whether or not simply moving a single model unit to a new location counts a "rearranging" the unit I don't know.

Dark_Mage99
30-08-2014, 12:34
Josfer, you cannot seriously claim a chariot rearranging its riders is a reform? They can't move in the first place.

Additionally, you claimed keeping the same facing = a reform, without changing formation. This is not a rule. To change your facing, you must actually change your facing.


So what's the difference between a single model making a combat reform and only changing it's center point and a 25 man unit making a combat reform and only changing it's center point?


It is NOT a reform if you "only change your centre point" - you can ONLY change your centre point as part of a reform.

A unit of 25 models re-arranging its formation is a reform, regardless of where the centre point is.

That's the difference. Because a single model can't change its formation, it is always a single model.


Either way you define a formation, what does it mean to change the formation of a single model's 1x1 unit? No matter what you do, it will always be 1x1. So, I think it can be argued that a single model cannot reform because it cannot change to a "new formation".

This is precisely the argument, good sir :)

A single model CANNOT change its formation, it can only change its facing.

P. 14 BRB says:

"When a unit reforms, it can change its number of ranks or files (A), the direction it is facing (B) , or both (C)"

These are the ONLY things a reform allows.

The shimmy is not a reform in any way whatsoever. It is a move. Therefore it is illegal.

The only way a single model can "reform" to shimmy, is if it also changes its facing. And then it can't remove any models from combat, so its options are limited.

In essence, a single model vs a single model can shimmy as far as it wants by changing its facing.

But a single model vs a unit can change its facing and shimmy only as long as it doesn't remove models from combat.

Josfer
30-08-2014, 22:58
I had written a lenghty answer and it was deleted by "your token expired"...I'll get back to hdctambiens page 2 post later.

In short just to thesoundofmusica: The rules texts were quoted on the previous pages by us (including the FAQ). If you search for a specific wording, you should be able to find anything you need.


How does this allow units sliding along the enemy base?
The first sentence of the reform starts with "you can completely rearrange your unit". Location is part of an arrangement. In a normal move the center point has to stay put, so here a clear boundary for the location is set. In a combat reform such a boundary is also set: As long as models in B2B before are in B2B afterwards (while the center point does not have to stay the same).

For example:
You have 5 heroes in a unit fighting two chariots:
_XX___YY_
_XX___YY_
_XX___YY_
__ABCDE__

Now battle reform:
_XX___YY_
_XX___YY_
_XX___YY_
___BCDEA_

I don't know why this wouldn't suffice to be a rearraging of the unit. The center doesn't have to stay the same, so A running to the right fighting the other chariot is totally fine.
And as GW says in the book, combat is a fluid thing, so why shouldn't a guy that charged the left foot of a dragon during the fight move towards the right foot, so others behind him could charge onto the left foot (because the right foot is behind a charge preventing wall, unit or whatever).

@Dark_Mage99:

Josfer, you cannot seriously claim a chariot rearranging its riders is a reform? They can't move in the first place.
Mine can, because I have an army that allows characters to be mounted on chariots, so I magnetized the crew. And in the reality the riders live in they can obviously too.


Additionally, you claimed keeping the same facing = a reform, without changing formation. This is not a rule. To change your facing, you must actually change your facing.
Well that's wrong. It explicitly says ANY facing. I take the model, turn it 360° (thus changing the facing if you REALLY want to be so stubborn and not accept) and stop at the original facing. It doesn't say "different" (not even "new"), it says "any" facing. And even if it said different facing, I could change the facing by 0.0000000000000001° (a simple touch should suffice) and it was changed and different.

Splitting hairs over these words is totally meaningless and doesn't give any benefit. If someone wants to reform and do nothing (thus only losing his movement and shooting), why should that be prevented? And if someone can shimmy along a big model to make some space for another chargee what's the game breaking thing that has to be prevented to make this argument even worth it?
On the other hand the "no you can't change your facing without having something different" faction did setup some really nonsense litmus tests and stuff so suddenly single models that were charged in the flank can't get their front to the enemy, because they don't change their ranks and files and other nonsense. Besides giving up movement and shooting, everything else is voluntarily. There's always "CAN change...", "CAN rearrange..", etc.
The example picture on p. 14 clearly states that you don't HAVE TO change your RnF.


Page 5 of the BRB:
"...all models in the unit must be arranged in a formation that consists of one or more horizontal lines, called ranks and a number of vertical lines, called files."
So, I'd say both ranks and files define the formation.
NO! This just says a formation has to have any number of ranks and files (and one rank and one file are "any numbers) and defines ranks and files. Formation is never defined.

And really it's totally counterintuitive and worsens the gameply to say this shouldn't be allowed:

(A=RnF, B=hero, C=RnF)

AAABA
CCCCC
_CCC_
(the outer models of the second rank of C were lost during the fight)

to

AAABA
CCCCC
__CCC

to get a maximum number of attacks onto the hero next turn.