PDA

View Full Version : Who is stashing Heroes in the back ranks?



Ender Shadowkin
21-01-2011, 20:06
So the RAW interpretation of the BRB lets you add a hero to the back ranks when the front ranks are full of command models, and then does not force you to move him forward after a reform. I've seen people post a lot about this tactic. But really have never seen it in a tournie or private game. Who here is using this tactic? Seams like a great way to zero out your sports scores, lol :cool:

Chiungalla
21-01-2011, 20:14
Sports scores are not applied where I live. Also there is something like "players reputation". I have never done it so far, but I will use it if my opponent applies it or any other cheesy tactic which I think is on par or worse then this.

IcedCrow
21-01-2011, 20:20
What do you gain from this? You shouldn't be able to use his leadership. Is it just so he can fight in the back rank and not get targeted in the initial round of combat?

amysrevenge
21-01-2011, 20:30
I'd answer "never", but recently I stuck a character in the second rank when the front was full (3 Hammerer command plus Lord on shield means BSB goes to the second rank), and when the unit champ was killed I stuck another RnF model in his place and kept the BSB in the second rank. So I had to answer "every once in a while".

I wouldn't pull the reform cheese to do it if there was space available otherwise though.

Bodysnatcher
21-01-2011, 20:33
Why would you push a weedy BSB into combat if doing so would autolose you a game?
I disagree with people doing the 'deploy 3 wide so characters forced into second rank, reform 1st turn and leave characters in second rank'.
But there should be no shame in leaving characters out of it in a combat reform.
Example: Yesterday my horror unit got flanked by two combat lizardmen units in a blood and glory game. If on the combat reform I placed by BSB in contact I would gain 1 additional attack for a response of several attacks at the BSB which would drop me to two banners and lose the game. So why on earth would I do it?

Chiungalla
21-01-2011, 20:34
What do you gain from this? You shouldn't be able to use his leadership. Is it just so he can fight in the back rank and not get targeted in the initial round of combat?

You can use his leadership and his magic items.
He may cast spells. And you can use his battle standard.
And you can't target him in further rounds of combat either.

Oberon
21-01-2011, 20:37
I wouldn't do that reform-trick or anything, but if my mage isn't in contact there's no way I would move him into contact either. Totally different thing though->chose nope, never.

TMATK
21-01-2011, 20:42
I apply the rules under "Making Way to Another Rank" on p100 - after combat, characters move to the front in the movement phase. I know it's not 100% clear, but I think it's RAI.

Emissary
21-01-2011, 20:44
Anyone who tried to pull the deploy 3 wide, then reform and keep the character in the same rank trick with me would see his game end immediately and would have no further games with me. Just smacks of waac.

Malorian
21-01-2011, 20:48
I'm still running a bunker instead but I personally have no problem with it and would do it in a pinch.

Emissary
21-01-2011, 20:49
I apply the rules under "Making Way to Another Rank" on p100 - after combat, characters move to the front in the movement phase. I know it's not 100% clear, but I think it's RAI.


Agreed. I'll have to look at this when I get home, but it sounds like the answer.

Ender Shadowkin
21-01-2011, 20:49
What do you gain from this? You shouldn't be able to use his leadership. Is it just so he can fight in the back rank and not get targeted in the initial round of combat?

You can use his leadership now, you only loose it for a turn if you refuse a challenge. People do this to protect BSB's with Magic banners, and wizards.


Why would you push a weedy BSB into combat if doing so would autolose you a game?

From a army/list building perspective why would you bring a weedy charector to a brawl, or have a list where that weedy charector gets readily exposed to front line action? Generally the Army Magic Banners worth taking are powerful and GW has built in a system where you take a significant risk in taking one, and Wizards generally need to be protected by careful unit placement and manouvering.



I disagree with people doing the 'deploy 3 wide so characters forced into second rank, reform 1st turn and leave characters in second rank'.
But there should be no shame in leaving characters out of it in a combat reform.
Example: Yesterday my horror unit got flanked by two combat lizardmen units in a blood and glory game. If on the combat reform I placed by BSB in contact I would gain 1 additional attack for a response of several attacks at the BSB which would drop me to two banners and lose the game. So why on earth would I do it?

Well it looks way worse when units are marching around the battlefield with characters (other than maidens :D ) in the second rank. But... Combat reforms are a little differnt and more understandable. But generally speaking, cowering in the back of a unit is more of a Skaven thing, and you wouldn't think your slavering daemonic friends would be quite as inspired by their gods shiny banner if the guy holding it wasn't camped out in the back. You had a pretty good ward save didn't ya?;)

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-01-2011, 20:54
I'd answer "never", but recently I stuck a character in the second rank when the front was full (3 Hammerer command plus Lord on shield means BSB goes to the second rank), and when the unit champ was killed I stuck another RnF model in his place and kept the BSB in the second rank. So I had to answer "every once in a while".

I wouldn't pull the reform cheese to do it if there was space available otherwise though.

A sad excuse :p

Korraz
21-01-2011, 21:00
I occasionally do it with my ogre Butchers, when I want to be an ass. But those units are 3 wide anyway, and if the champion gets slain, the butcher moves to the front. The 3-Wide-Reform thing would earn a free win for my opponent, since I would immedeatly put my miniatures away.

Ludaman
21-01-2011, 21:02
My friend runs a unit of 80 gors almost every game, he runs a bsb with the +1 str to the whole unit banner and always reforms during the first turn and keeps him in the middle... grumble

IcedCrow
21-01-2011, 21:06
Ah. I guess I'd never really consider that but if it's legit per the rules you can't really force people to play the way you want them to. I would say if it bothers you then make sure you are playing like-minded people that agree with your playstyle and problem solved.

Chiungalla
21-01-2011, 21:13
I've seen people post a lot about this tactic. But really have never seen it in a tournie or private game.

I hope/guess that this is true for most of the RAW-chees. Here in the forum it's a funny finding, in a real game, your opponent will probably throw his old metal stegadon at you for actually trying this...

Ender Shadowkin
21-01-2011, 21:17
Ah. I guess I'd never really consider that but if it's legit per the rules you can't really force people to play the way you want them to. I would say if it bothers you then make sure you are playing like-minded people that agree with your playstyle and problem solved.

I would not say the rules tell you to do this, its more of an exploit, that has not been corrected by a FAQ, intentionally or not. You can also scratch build a model on a 6" rock to get LOS over most things and still not be a large target.

So maybe they like the way its functioning, or want to perserve the combat reform options and havn't sorted out how to keep normal reforms with the charectors in front. My theory is that it just dosn't happen enough to be bothered with. But I feel if they really wanted you to deploy a character model in the middle of your unit. They would have just said that, and not forced you to deploy 3 wide or any perform any other reform dances to get the guy where you want him. You sure don't see any GW game photos with an army standard skulking in the back ranks (other than Skaven, who are rather adept at skulking).

Caitsidhe
21-01-2011, 21:27
I always reform and shift my BSB to the back of my large WE Glade Guard shooting units Why on earth would I want to keep him in the front from either a fluff or tech standpoint? Keeping him in the front actually loses me a bow shot. :) His job is to hold up a magical Banner not stand by as a target practice for all the jived up assassin models which have been twinked out for that non-fluff purpose.

enyoss
21-01-2011, 21:27
Never.

I'd say it was a horrible loophole apart from the fact they have consciously removed every rule which inhibits it. Still, I have my values. I suspect I'm the kind of guy who'd get shot in the back while naively counting out my ten steps in a duel :(.

Malorian
21-01-2011, 21:33
Are people against just the reforming trick? Because I really can't see what people would have against having a character in the 2nd rank because the front it full.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-01-2011, 21:37
Its plain wrong for a 'hero' to hide out in the back ranks like a dirty rat.

This is a heroic game of fantasy battles, where wizards cast mighty spells, and legendary warriors go bravely in combat with flaming swords :p

Malorian
21-01-2011, 21:43
Its plain wrong for a 'hero' to hide out in the back ranks like a dirty rat.

Even for Skaven?


Edit:

I'd also like to add that lizardmen have been doing this to use for years...

"Oh you want to kill my slann? Good luck getting to him!"

TMATK
21-01-2011, 21:44
Are people against just the reforming trick? Because I really can't see what people would have against having a character in the 2nd rank because the front it full.

It's clear that you are allowed to move them back if there's no room. The problem I have is the idea that characters can remain thereindefinitely, I think they need to move back in the movement phase if the room opens up.

The reform "trick" I find absurd. It's so against the spirit of the game that it really isn't worth wasting time discussing, imo.

tmarichards
21-01-2011, 21:45
By the rules there's nothing wrong with it, and I used to do it all the time. I'd explain it to my opponent beforehand so that they knew what I was doing, and told them they should feel free to check the rulebook or get a judge if they didn't trust me.

However, it's now being banned on the UK tournament circuit, starting with Tempest next month (which is also banning the swift reform to allow you to enter a Watchtower on the first turn, which is very legal but very unintended) which means that I'm no longer doing it in events or practice games where it would be legal. It'll be fixed in an FAQ before too long I would imagine, probably some time after 9th edition.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-01-2011, 21:47
Even for Skaven?

Of course skaven are excempt from this, as its their character - they even got a special rule for it ;)

Gaargod
21-01-2011, 21:50
As i refuse to count a Slann as doing this (Or would you prefer the toads of magic AND combaty death of earlier editions). Otherwise, no i wouldn't do it.

Having a unit with too many characters, so you stick your weedy mage in the back is one thing - it makes a certain sense in the fluff in fact, even if its a bit irritating.
But deliberately abusing the rules with reform trick? Oh hells no.

Charistoph
21-01-2011, 21:51
Hmm, Skaven must be Fantasy's Alpha Legion, if other armies are trying to effectively use their rules...

Wargamejunkie
21-01-2011, 21:51
I do mainly as I have one unit with a few characters in it and full command.

I wouldn't do the 3 wide and reform though.

Then again I play Skaven so hiding characters is part of my nature.

Oberon
21-01-2011, 22:08
Of course skaven are excempt from this, as its their character - they even got a special rule for it ;)

Yeah, and they get to use it only when somebody foolish enough challenges them :) Before they could start the game in the last rank, not anymore. Of course, it doesn't matter to me as I play WoC. :sigh:

enyoss
21-01-2011, 22:11
Are people against just the reforming trick? Because I really can't see what people would have against having a character in the 2nd rank because the front it full.

The reforming trick is about as filthy as it gets, for sure.

As for characters being forced in to the back ranks because the front is full, I'd much rather see a hierarchy like Musician -> Champion -> Standard -> Characters when it comes to models moving to the back rank. With the power of magic these days this is the only way to get rid of Wizards, so I'm not even sure I'd add an exemption for them. Otherwise, if your unit is so narrow and your abundance of characters so high that you have nothing but a front rank of characters then tough, reform or move some characters out!

Ender Shadowkin
21-01-2011, 22:20
Never.

I'd say it was a horrible loophole apart from the fact they have consciously removed every rule which inhibits it. Still, I have my values. I suspect I'm the kind of guy who'd get shot in the back while naively counting out my ten steps in a duel :(.

Hey dude! You gonna be in CA this Spring? If so come up to San Francisco to the Quake city rumble...I'll buy you a beer ;)


I always reform and shift my BSB to the back of my large WE Glade Guard shooting units Why on earth would I want to keep him in the front from either a fluff or tech standpoint? Keeping him in the front actually loses me a bow shot. :) His job is to hold up a magical Banner not stand by as a target practice for all the jived up assassin models which have been twinked out for that non-fluff purpose.

Well Why do the rules tell you to deploy charectors in the front rank when they join a unit unless there is no room? If they had intend you to stash him in the back, they would have just let you add him anywhere. I'm assuming your GG are pretty wide, you can accomplish nearly the same thing by deploying him on the far flank (still in the front) or getting him out of the unit at the approrpiate time. WE BSBs have been squish for a long time, and there have been ways to deal with that from War Dancer Body guards to a nearby hero with the amber pendant. Generally you don't want your Glade guard in combat anyway. Also you can still hook him up with the annoyance of netlings and a magic banner.


Even for Skaven?


Edit:

I'd also like to add that lizardmen have been doing this to use for years...

"Oh you want to kill my slann? Good luck getting to him!"

Curse you and your confounded logic :p Who wants to see a big fat frog in the front of a unit anyway :angel: Brettonian Maidens/sorceress are another example. But those seam to be specific advatnages laid out and given to individual pieces of specific armies. And at least those models are in the middle....

enyoss
21-01-2011, 23:06
Hey dude! You gonna be in CA this Spring? If so come up to San Francisco to the Quake city rumble...I'll buy you a beer ;)


It's a deal! I think I'm in Washington the week before, but should be able to get back for this. I'll even be able to field my unpainted army... hoorah! :)

Bodysnatcher
21-01-2011, 23:21
From a army/list building perspective why would you bring a weedy charector to a brawl, or have a list where that weedy charector gets readily exposed to front line action? Generally the Army Magic Banners worth taking are powerful and GW has built in a system where you take a significant risk in taking one, and Wizards generally need to be protected by careful unit placement and manouvering.

Well it looks way worse when units are marching around the battlefield with characters (other than maidens :D ) in the second rank. But... Combat reforms are a little differnt and more understandable. But generally speaking, cowering in the back of a unit is more of a Skaven thing, and you wouldn't think your slavering daemonic friends would be quite as inspired by their gods shiny banner if the guy holding it wasn't camped out in the back. You had a pretty good ward save didn't ya?;)

It's a monoTzeentch army. So for silly points I get +1W, +1A and +1Ld over my standard billy.
Besides, cunningingly hiding in the back and influencing from afar is about as Tzeentchian as it gets.
But no, I don't move around with them in the back ranks, that's silly. But sacrificing a game for no reason is even sillier.

Emissary
21-01-2011, 23:24
Frankly, if you're doing this on purpose, I really hope you play against opponents that used loaded dice. Those aren't against RAW either but are easily known as a against the rules too.

Bodysnatcher
21-01-2011, 23:31
Frankly, if you're doing this on purpose, I really hope you play against opponents that used loaded dice. Those aren't against RAW either but are easily known as a against the rules too.

Doing what, exactly, on purpose?

Emissary
21-01-2011, 23:38
reforming and not moving your characters up to replace normal rnf in the front rank.

Insane Courage
21-01-2011, 23:54
I think what some people are forgetting is that this is a table top Wargame and sometimes the best tactics are to hide. I don't use this tactic but if I were to play anyone who did I wouldn't mind. This is one who is studying and really understands the rules. Protecting your squishy characters is a survival tactic.

Sent from my DROIDX

Havock
21-01-2011, 23:56
Strongly considering putting forward a houserule at our club pre-emptively, bring back the old "if your character is at the back, you cannot contribute anything", no LD, no BSB for the respective unit, the BSB is of course free to 'inspire' units nearby.

Likewise, it shouldn't be as hard to assassinate characters by piling on attacks from a horde formation; saying something like "supporting attacks may not target characters if there are other targets present."
ie; three front rankers can poke a wizard, but the three guys behind them (and behind those) can only jab into the unit.
Of course, he is is alone, too bad for him.

Meh

bluemage
22-01-2011, 01:43
I haven't used the tactic or seen the tactic used before. However if I was playing in a tournament with no sportsmanship scores and was at the top tables, I'd be tempted to.

Rolo Ramone
22-01-2011, 02:08
"Men, I hate the steadfast rule, and Iīm pretty sure itīs a hole in the rules, so if you take advantage of it, you are such a WAAC player!"

No, seriously, I never used that tactic, but I can not see why there are so much people against a correct use of the rules. There are a big lot of things that I hate from the actual BRB, but I just cross my fingers to get a correction on the next FAQ.

Glen_Savet
22-01-2011, 02:41
I have no problem with it. I'd use it if I thought it'd help.

Emissary
22-01-2011, 02:53
Sorry, but there is a difference between playing by the rules and looking for some oversight or some small situation that's against the designers intent and running with it screaming "it's not agianst the rules" as some sort of blessing for you to do it.

I do find it hilarious that every WAAC player I see screams "it's not against the rules" as though it's some sort of golden saying that will let them get away with whatever ascinine loophole they find. Yet they always forget the Most Important Rule on page 2. IE, the game is too complex for ever situation to be covered and to dice off. The game designers know that they can't cover every single base that those WAAC players out there are looking for to get some stupid edge and put that in place.

The rules don't say that you can do this, the rules merely don't say anything about it, because, frankly, it's just plain stupid and the only way you're going to go with it is if winning is more important then what common sense will tell you about the rules. It's crystal clear the designers don't intend you to put your character in any rank other then the first if there are normal r&f troopers in that rank (unless you have a special rule to allow you). Sorry, if the designers wanted you to have functioning characters in the 2nd rank or beyond they would just have let you set them up there, not have to come up with some retarded way around the rules such as this. It's just so stupid its beyond reasoning.


Packing up your models and going to have a sulk because someone used a tactic that you think is "mean" is absolutely ridiculous.
Sorry, but Warhammer is a game, and games are meant for fun. If you're willing to suck all of the fun out of a GAME just to get some little edge to win, you don't deserve my time. Winning a game proves nothing, it's how you play it that proves everything.

isanti13
22-01-2011, 03:12
I run a clanrat unit 6 wide with a bell in it... So my BSB goes in the 2nd rank.... It's very fluffy for Skaven :D

DaemonReign
22-01-2011, 04:31
Sorry, but there is a difference between playing by the rules and looking for some oversight or some small situation that's against the designers intent and running with it screaming "it's not agianst the rules" as some sort of blessing for you to do it.

I do find it hilarious that every WAAC player I see screams "it's not against the rules" as though it's some sort of golden saying that will let them get away with whatever ascinine loophole they find. Yet they always forget the Most Important Rule on page 2. IE, the game is too complex for ever situation to be covered and to dice off. The game designers know that they can't cover every single base that those WAAC players out there are looking for to get some stupid edge and put that in place.

The rules don't say that you can do this, the rules merely don't say anything about it, because, frankly, it's just plain stupid and the only way you're going to go with it is if winning is more important then what common sense will tell you about the rules. It's crystal clear the designers don't intend you to put your character in any rank other then the first if there are normal r&f troopers in that rank (unless you have a special rule to allow you). Sorry, if the designers wanted you to have functioning characters in the 2nd rank or beyond they would just have let you set them up there, not have to come up with some retarded way around the rules such as this. It's just so stupid its beyond reasoning.


Sorry, but Warhammer is a game, and games are meant for fun. If you're willing to suck all of the fun out of a GAME just to get some little edge to win, you don't deserve my time. Winning a game proves nothing, it's how you play it that proves everything.

Quoted for truth.

Emissary sums it up here in a way that really couldn't be put better. The BrB doesn't say that you shouldn't use loaded dice either - spot on!

Djekar
22-01-2011, 07:50
I've used it before in some night goblins. 5 wide with 2 big bosses, full command and a shaman ... I wonder who's going in the second rank?

I'm not sold on the reform trick, but after looking at the rules it seems pretty clear that the "make way" manuever is optional, so even if one of the bosses dies I don't feel compelled to move Captain Squishy up to the front during combat.

Warrio
22-01-2011, 12:28
Sorry, but there is a difference between playing by the rules and looking for some oversight or some small situation that's against the designers intent

There have been a number of FAQs. The designers know about the tactic and have said nothing, as such, it's valid. While playing within your own rules of "fun" is nice, consider that trying to outsmart an opponent may be fun for someone else.

RMacDeezy
22-01-2011, 12:58
There have been a number of FAQs. The designers know about the tactic

stopped reading here, this is a presumption that holds no ground. by this argument, there would be no reason to have a second, third, or subsequent FAQs.

Earthbeard
22-01-2011, 13:00
Professional pride forbids me to perform such dastardly tricks.

If you have to do it to win, then shame on you.

Rolo Ramone
22-01-2011, 13:20
stopped reading here, this is a presumption that holds no ground. by this argument, there would be no reason to have a second, third, or subsequent FAQs.

And thatīs the same kind of presumption who let some people think that the know what the designer want to put on the BRB.

DeathlessDraich
22-01-2011, 13:27
A few misplaced and preconceived perceptions here.

1) A player who unveils a legitimate 'tactic' is not necessarily a 'win at all costs' player

2) A legitimate tactic is not a loophole. It is something new offered by an insightful player.

Winning is secondary for me and I tend to correct my opponents mistakes, warn them of what I could do when they position their units wrongly etc And insist on a re-roll when they have an unlucky roll
But
I welcome and encourage all new tactics and in this respect I have twice told my opponent to reposition his Wizard in the back rank (2 turns before) so that it won't be exposed when my unit charges.

I've even gone 1 step further and told my opponet to deploy his mage in the back rank once.

Warrio
22-01-2011, 14:01
I tend to correct my opponents mistakes, warn them of what I could do when they position their units wrongly etc And insist on a re-roll when they have an unlucky roll

God I hate playing games like this. Makes the whole experience of playing seem pointless.

Novrain
22-01-2011, 14:40
sometimes popping characters in non-front ranks is necessary tho. It happens with my dwarves when I have the three command models, a lord on shieldbearers, a bsb and a runesmith in the same unti. The bsb and runesmith get pushed back, but if there was a space then they would move forward.

Emissary
22-01-2011, 15:06
There have been a number of FAQs. The designers know about the tactic and have said nothing, as such, it's valid. While playing within your own rules of "fun" is nice, consider that trying to outsmart an opponent may be fun for someone else.

The FAQs have gone through quite a number of revisions. Not just one. Plus it seems this is a newer thing that's gaining momentum, not something that's been widespread since the beginning. And I don't consider this to be "outsmarting" an opponent. It's just abusing something that wasn't spelled out word for word to get some slight edge.


And thatīs the same kind of presumption who let some people think that the know what the designer want to put on the BRB.
If the designers wanted you to put the BSB in the back ranks they'd let you do it all the time. Instead they FORCE you to set up characters in the front rank if there's room. They wouldn't force you to extrapolate something that was neglected to be spelled out in the rules to be forced to do. What I want is someone to show me where in the rules it states that when you reform you don't have to move your characters up to the front assuming there's room. What I don't want is saying that it DOESN'T say that you have to. The reason for this is that if you can show me where it says it, then the rules allow it, if you can't, then the rules don't mention it at all, and you have to go by inferring the intent from other sources.


1) A player who unveils a legitimate 'tactic' is not necessarily a 'win at all costs' player

2) A legitimate tactic is not a loophole. It is something new offered by an insightful player.

Agreed, but I don't consider this to be a tactic at all. A loophole is a mistake in the rule wording that let you get around the rules. I see nothing that says what's going on here is anything but a loophole. Nothing more. The designers want you to set up your characters in the front rank if there's space. You can only set the up in the back ranks if you can't. They just neglected to mention that you have to move your characters forward when you reform. Neglecting to mention is a lot different then stating you can do the opposite.

giant stegadon
22-01-2011, 15:23
+1 for Emissary

IcedCrow
22-01-2011, 15:58
I'm not for this tactic either but let me point out that none of us have a direct line to the designers and none of us have clairvoyant abilities that let us tap into their inner thoughts about what they intended for the game.

If you go back a few years on here you will see that once upon a time I used to tout that I knew what the designers wanted too, because it seemed OBVIOUS that the designers really meant x, y, and z.

Turns out sometimes I was wrong. Yes indeed... some of my clairvoyance and great insight was very wrong (as a WD article would come out and show otherwise or an FAQ would clarify against my brilliant thinking about how the designers really thought this way because it was so logical to me that they would only think that way) And that it made me look like a tool to presume Gav Thorpe and I had a pint and discussed how he really thought the game should have been played.

While again I would never do this, if someone did do it, and the rules did not forbid him to do it, then I'd be ok with it. There is a giant difference from using loaded dice (cheating dice rolls which shouldn't have to be put into a rulebook to not use) and using a strategy that you may happen to not like. Hey I don't like steam tanks either, nor did I like BUS units loaded down with characters which seemed "unfluffy" to me among a handful of other things and certain strategies annoyed the crap out of me (conga lines for one) but they were legit all the live long day.

If the designers really don't want someone to use a tactic, they will FAQ it. If it hasn't been FAQ'd, then it's legit. The designers, by the way, read these boards and other warhammer related boards so I'm pretty sure they know about this tactic. And as a few FAQs have come out since the release of the game as I understand, I would therefore assume that at least for right now they are ok with this. You and I may not like this, but them's the breaks.

They may indeed FAQ it out, and great! But until then, you, you, you, and you, and yes you, and even I do not have any clue what the designers really intended. If you feel a certain way of playing is not in the spirit of how you want to play, I heartily encourage you to not play that person. Because yes... it does suck the fun out of the game playing someone who doesn't play in a vein that you do, and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to play against people who you have no fun against.

I myself have no fun against hyper competitive people, WAAC or otherwise, because the game is a way for me to relax, and playing hyper competitively is not relaxing to me.

SamVimes
22-01-2011, 16:29
I would never have thought of this tactic. My gut reaction was "but that's a silly loophole!" however, the more I think about it, the more I actually like the idea of the tactic. I think it would be great for a campaign. I think both players should know about the tactic beforehand, just so it's an actual choice to use the tactic, but if everyone knows it's an option, I think it's fine.

Rolo Ramone
22-01-2011, 16:32
+1 for IcedCrow. Thatīs my point too.

HRM
22-01-2011, 18:03
What was it Al Davis said...? "Just win, baby."

'Course, no one really likes him.

Emissary
22-01-2011, 18:51
Sorry Crow, I just disagree. (we'll just end up having to agree to disagree) I think it's crystal clear that this "tactic" is no more then a loophole. I certainly don't think that some game designer made it clear that characters cannot be placed in back ranks of a unit when there is a normal r&f model that then intended for some person that wants to ignore common sense to turn around, deploy his unit 3 wide, then immediately reform to completely get around the rule. They just would have let you set up with the guy in the back ranks to begin with. I agree that there is a certain amount of grey areas in the game and you just have to go with what's written, but this is just so far outside the realm of common sense or logic that it's just beyond me. This loophole is completely against the written rules and those defending it are acting like the rules state that you can do it, rather then the reality that it's missing altogether. There's nothing supporting that interpretation other then the sounds of crickets chirping yet there are several things pointing to that's now how it should be.

At worst, I think this is covered under the most important rule on page 2. If you don't want to have to play against this loophole every game, just force your opponent to roll off if he tries it. At least that's actually written in the rulebook and it's labeled "the most important rule". It's 100% clear this this situation "isn't covered by the rules" instead of "being supported by the rules"

In the end I'm really glad that I play at a store of common sense where something trying to pull this would be laughed right out of there and I feel bad for those that are going to get hosed by someone trying to pull this on them.

IcedCrow
22-01-2011, 19:13
That's cool man.

enyoss
22-01-2011, 19:20
I think Emissary (and others) make a great argument when pointing out that the designers' intent is quite clear when the rules state that characters must go in the front rank (where possible) in every other circumstance.

T10's signature used to have a nice quote about wishful thinking when looking for Easter Eggs in Warhammer, and implying that the designers' intent is for clever players to get round all the characters-in-units restrictions by morphing units in turn one seems like a pretty massive Easter Egg to me.

If it ever gets FAQ'ed otherwise (i.e. they say it's ok), I promise I will be the first to come on down to Warseer and chow down on humble pie :D.

IcedCrow
22-01-2011, 19:34
Unfortunately with GW you'd be surprised (often) as to what is intended and what was not. I can say that with certainty after playing the game for four editions lol.

Trikk
22-01-2011, 19:40
http://images.travelpod.com/users/radcliffe-riley/10.1275323215.roman-legion-at-jerash.jpg

Hey guys! Put your BSB in the front rank or I'm going home!

the_slosh
22-01-2011, 19:54
Well that is one puny standard Trikk :)

On topic; If there is a situation where I have no choice but to put my character in the second rank (often occurs with OK) there is nothing I can do about it really.
Would never do the "first turn reform" - shenanigan though

Tower_Of_The_Stars
22-01-2011, 20:02
Only with Skaven ;)

Avian
22-01-2011, 20:18
My Orc Great Shaman only ever hangs around in the second rank. He gets deployed there because the first rank is full (command + 2 other characters) and he stays there as he can't fight and can't buy armour.

So I voted 'always', though this is only with one of my armies (chaos characters don't mind being in the first rank).

enyoss
22-01-2011, 20:32
[img]Hey guys! Put your BSB in the front rank or I'm going home!

Nice :). I'm not taking the mick either, as...


My Orc Great Shaman only ever hangs around in the second rank. He gets deployed there because the first rank is full (command + 2 other characters) and he stays there as he can't fight and can't buy armour.


... I can see the logic to it. Maybe we should petition for an errata allowing people to dump characters anywhere they like if that's the way it's supposed to be played? At least then it would save players the hassle of going through the motions and reforming all their units automatically on turn one to artificially achieve this result.

TheYoungin
22-01-2011, 20:47
I don't like the idea of this, its kinda the same as an army who stands back and shoots the entire time, but I guess that happened more in 7th.

Skyth
22-01-2011, 20:54
At worst, I think this is covered under the most important rule on page 2. If you don't want to have to play against this loophole every game, just force your opponent to roll off if he tries it. At least that's actually written in the rulebook and it's labeled "the most important rule". It's 100% clear this this situation "isn't covered by the rules" instead of "being supported by the rules"


It's as much covered by the most important rule as Steadfast and Random charge distances.

I hate the whole 'If you don't play the way that I think the game should be played, you're a bad person' trite that comes from this sort of thread.

Sylass
22-01-2011, 20:59
Never. Covered by the rules or not, the whole concept seems wrong if you ask me.
(And don't get me started on the "I put all my characters in one unit" approach...)

Lord Inquisitor
22-01-2011, 21:05
This little discussion has been entertaining, complete with shouts of "Scrubs!" and "WAACers!" from both sides.

Some points:


Placing characters in the second rank of a unit is 100% legal ... if the front rank is full. Indeed, it is often unavoidable (e.g. with Ogres). This is not cheesy or abusing the spirit of the rules, it's explicitly outlined in the rules.

As for the "tactic" of reforming to move characters away from the front rank, it seems pretty obvious that it was not intended. My main reasoning for this is simply: why put in the requirement to put the characters in the front rank if possible if this can be circumvented with a simple reform? Added to that, the rules (most notably the Make Way rules) assume a character is in the front rank.

That said, very occasionally the FAQ does something odd (hands up if you saw wizards being able to dispel while fleeing coming?). Still, unless FAQed, it is prudent to regard any rules loophole that is obviously inconsistent with the rest of the rules with a deal of suspcion.

In terms of realism, it isn't particularly problematic either way. Indeed, it doesn't seem reasonable that wizards should have to hang out in the front rank if they're not throwing fireballs. The requirement to move to the front when joining a unit remains inconsistent.

In terms of game balance, it seems obvious that being at the front of a unit is an explicit weakness of characters, always has been. Arguments to the contrary have to explain why characters are forced to the front in the first place.

The lack of a FAQ on this subject is NOT any kind of evidence that this is supported. Indeed, I'm really surprised that it hasn't been tackled, it has got to be the #1 frequently asked question, certainly now. If they intended to rule in favour of strict RAW, they would do so, there are plenty of FAQ answers that do. Silence is not an endorsement.

Analogies with explicit rules like "steadfast" are misleading. We are talking about an absence of a rule on this subject, not the presence of an explicit rule. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the RAW that there's nothing preventing a character being moved wherever in a unit, but the existence of a clear rule is not quite the same thing as an omission of a rule entirely. If the rules said "however, when a unit reforms, a characters may be placed wherever you wish within the unit, not just the front rank" then noone would get hot under the collar about it. There is simply nothing on this subject in the rulebook.

So at the end of the day, I would not do this, I don't think it a "valid tactic." I certainly would not try to pull this one without okaying it with my opponent before the game. If both players are cool with it then I don't see any issue but if one side isn't expecting it, well, it is likely to be an unpleasant little disagreement.

enyoss
22-01-2011, 21:08
Well put :D.

H33D
22-01-2011, 21:11
There are only two sections in the book that refer to the location of characters in a unit.

Under 'Joining a Unit' it states that when a character joins a unit it is placed in the front rank. They only go to the second or farther back ranks if there isn't enough room in the front rank due to other characters or command models taking up the entire front rank.

Under the rules for 'Making Way to Another Rank' it states that a character can make way to any position in the unit if he isn't in combat in order to engage the enemy in close combat. After the combat, the character must automatically 'return' to the front rank of the unit.

It seems both of these rules are assuming you will be putting your character in the front rank all of the time except when there's no room. The rules nowhere explicitly say that you can't move your characters out of the front rank at will.

But why does that mean you can? RAI you obviously can't do it otherwise every single picture of characters in units in the rulebook wouldn't have them in the front rank, and every rule regarding characters in units in the rulebook wouldn't assume you have them in the front rank. RAW there is nothing supporting moving them out of the front rank, people support this rule by just saying there is nothing that say's I can't which is a huge no-no way of thinking in Warhammer.

I honestly think that having your characters anywhere except the front rank is a weasely way of abusing the rules. It is definitely a loop-hole, and a way many players are probably looking forward to keeping their units alive.

My Dwarves always fight on the front lines when able.

Emissary
22-01-2011, 21:34
Agreed with Lord Inquisitor. Just to be clear, I have no problem with a character hanging out in the 2nd rank when there is no space in the first. that happens and it's within the rules. The only thing I'm arguing is when there is space and said character doesn't move up.

Trains_Get_Robbed
23-01-2011, 00:12
I also find it funny that many of the Skaven players have said, "well its in their nature." :p

_L_
23-01-2011, 01:36
Agree with Emissary... Stinks of WAAC if you ask me.

Geep
23-01-2011, 02:21
I'm hoping this gets FAQ'd, as it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. Real life facts, like what Trikk shows in the photo earlier, don't matter- this is fantasy. There are dragons, magical spells and heroes being heroic (may be some clue in the character type...).

If the front rank is full of characters then obviously more can be put in the second rank, but reform tricks and not moving characters forward does not sit well with me (except where it's part of the character's special rules- eg. Damsels and Slann).

The simplest solution would be to have no special abilities, Ld boosts, area effect magic items or spell casting from rear ranks (except for models with a contrary rule- including skaven characters Ld when they refuse a challenge). Players would instantly sort out their own cheese if that happened.

Isfimbur
23-01-2011, 12:55
I'm hoping this gets FAQ'd, as it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. Real life facts, like what Trikk shows in the photo earlier, don't matter- this is fantasy. There are dragons, magical spells and heroes being heroic (may be some clue in the character type...).

If the front rank is full of characters then obviously more can be put in the second rank, but reform tricks and not moving characters forward does not sit well with me (except where it's part of the character's special rules- eg. Damsels and Slann).

The simplest solution would be to have no special abilities, Ld boosts, area effect magic items or spell casting from rear ranks (except for models with a contrary rule- including skaven characters Ld when they refuse a challenge). Players would instantly sort out their own cheese if that happened.

No, that would not be a simple solution at all. Since some races without special rules can have their characters in the second row. Amongst them are Ogres do to their size and Dwarfs because of their ability to have multiple champions in some units and characters that take up more then one slot.. I think most people would agree with me that this is considered to be both RAW and RAI. Your suggestion would seriously screw those races over.

Ender Shadowkin
23-01-2011, 21:18
Great discussion guys, lord inquisitor summed it up pretty well in my mind. I have no problem with combat reforms in general to keep characters out of harms way, but think you should loose the benefits of bsbs . And clearly they have intended characters to be behind command models. But they wouldn't need any of those rules about placement if they intended all characters to be able to hide behind rank and file ( pretty brettonian chicks and sneaky rats excepted).

The only "tactic" I see as reasonably legit is building those hero heavy dwellers below magnets like Avian to keep heros out of the front. Not that I like it very much ;)

Justy
23-01-2011, 23:41
I'm tempted to do that with my Tomb Kings :(

Ender Shadowkin
24-01-2011, 02:05
I'm tempted to do that with my Tomb Kings :(

Hang tight, you should get a new book soonish, ;-)

Glen_Savet
24-01-2011, 03:03
If by "soonish" you mean possibly 2012.

Tarian
24-01-2011, 03:38
I've never done that, and never intend to do it, the only time my characters aren't in the fighting rank is if they got sent back, or the unit got flanked.

Avian
24-01-2011, 06:44
The only "tactic" I see as reasonably legit is building those hero heavy dwellers below magnets like Avian to keep heros out of the front. Not that I like it very much ;)
Any unit with an Orc Great Shaman in is a Dwellers magnet to begin with, since everyone in the unit dies on a 4+ with no kind of save. :p

Scythe
24-01-2011, 09:36
This little discussion has been entertaining, complete with shouts of "Scrubs!" and "WAACers!" from both sides.

Some points:


Placing characters in the second rank of a unit is 100% legal ... if the front rank is full. Indeed, it is often unavoidable (e.g. with Ogres). This is not cheesy or abusing the spirit of the rules, it's explicitly outlined in the rules.

As for the "tactic" of reforming to move characters away from the front rank, it seems pretty obvious that it was not intended. My main reasoning for this is simply: why put in the requirement to put the characters in the front rank if possible if this can be circumvented with a simple reform? Added to that, the rules (most notably the Make Way rules) assume a character is in the front rank.

That said, very occasionally the FAQ does something odd (hands up if you saw wizards being able to dispel while fleeing coming?). Still, unless FAQed, it is prudent to regard any rules loophole that is obviously inconsistent with the rest of the rules with a deal of suspcion.

In terms of realism, it isn't particularly problematic either way. Indeed, it doesn't seem reasonable that wizards should have to hang out in the front rank if they're not throwing fireballs. The requirement to move to the front when joining a unit remains inconsistent.

In terms of game balance, it seems obvious that being at the front of a unit is an explicit weakness of characters, always has been. Arguments to the contrary have to explain why characters are forced to the front in the first place.

The lack of a FAQ on this subject is NOT any kind of evidence that this is supported. Indeed, I'm really surprised that it hasn't been tackled, it has got to be the #1 frequently asked question, certainly now. If they intended to rule in favour of strict RAW, they would do so, there are plenty of FAQ answers that do. Silence is not an endorsement.

Analogies with explicit rules like "steadfast" are misleading. We are talking about an absence of a rule on this subject, not the presence of an explicit rule. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the RAW that there's nothing preventing a character being moved wherever in a unit, but the existence of a clear rule is not quite the same thing as an omission of a rule entirely. If the rules said "however, when a unit reforms, a characters may be placed wherever you wish within the unit, not just the front rank" then noone would get hot under the collar about it. There is simply nothing on this subject in the rulebook.

So at the end of the day, I would not do this, I don't think it a "valid tactic." I certainly would not try to pull this one without okaying it with my opponent before the game. If both players are cool with it then I don't see any issue but if one side isn't expecting it, well, it is likely to be an unpleasant little disagreement.

Excellent summary of the points brought forth.

So no, I would never use the reform tactic. The main argument for me is that if characters were intended to be placed in the second rank while the first rank had space, they would have been allowed to do so from the start, not after some strange reforming actions.

Of course, if the first rank is completely filled with characters/command, the situation is different, as you are explicitly allowed to deploy in the second rank in that specific case.

Eta
24-01-2011, 09:56
I don't do it because I play WoC and my heroes do not really need the protection in the second rank, but I wouldn't mind if my opponent did this. I like playing the game, winning or losing are not that important.

RanaldLoec
24-01-2011, 10:35
This little discussion has been entertaining, complete with shouts of "Scrubs!" and "WAACers!" from both sides.

Some points:


Placing characters in the second rank of a unit is 100% legal ... if the front rank is full. Indeed, it is often unavoidable (e.g. with Ogres). This is not cheesy or abusing the spirit of the rules, it's explicitly outlined in the rules.

As for the "tactic" of reforming to move characters away from the front rank, it seems pretty obvious that it was not intended. My main reasoning for this is simply: why put in the requirement to put the characters in the front rank if possible if this can be circumvented with a simple reform? Added to that, the rules (most notably the Make Way rules) assume a character is in the front rank.

That said, very occasionally the FAQ does something odd (hands up if you saw wizards being able to dispel while fleeing coming?). Still, unless FAQed, it is prudent to regard any rules loophole that is obviously inconsistent with the rest of the rules with a deal of suspcion.

In terms of realism, it isn't particularly problematic either way. Indeed, it doesn't seem reasonable that wizards should have to hang out in the front rank if they're not throwing fireballs. The requirement to move to the front when joining a unit remains inconsistent.

In terms of game balance, it seems obvious that being at the front of a unit is an explicit weakness of characters, always has been. Arguments to the contrary have to explain why characters are forced to the front in the first place.

The lack of a FAQ on this subject is NOT any kind of evidence that this is supported. Indeed, I'm really surprised that it hasn't been tackled, it has got to be the #1 frequently asked question, certainly now. If they intended to rule in favour of strict RAW, they would do so, there are plenty of FAQ answers that do. Silence is not an endorsement.

Analogies with explicit rules like "steadfast" are misleading. We are talking about an absence of a rule on this subject, not the presence of an explicit rule. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the RAW that there's nothing preventing a character being moved wherever in a unit, but the existence of a clear rule is not quite the same thing as an omission of a rule entirely. If the rules said "however, when a unit reforms, a characters may be placed wherever you wish within the unit, not just the front rank" then noone would get hot under the collar about it. There is simply nothing on this subject in the rulebook.

So at the end of the day, I would not do this, I don't think it a "valid tactic." I certainly would not try to pull this one without okaying it with my opponent before the game. If both players are cool with it then I don't see any issue but if one side isn't expecting it, well, it is likely to be an unpleasant little disagreement.

Clear, concise, logical, well thought out and presented points by Lord Inquisitor. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the whole 2nd rank characters.

As a predominately Empire and Woodelves player my characters are squishy but they stand at the front like men, they don't hide at the back like a eunuch at a hairy sack competition.

Urgat
24-01-2011, 11:15
No, not using that; besides nobody else than me probably even realised it could be done (no twisted minds around I guess), and I only know about it because I'm browsing Warseer... so if I did that, it'd likely spread like a nasty case of diarrhoea, I'd hate myself for crapping all over the rather friendly spirit of my gaming "group", and then see the others do the same by my fault.

oCoYoRoAoKo
24-01-2011, 11:39
There is only one situation where i do this:

5 Bloodcrushers, Full Command + Herald of Khorne BSB in a 3x2 formation.

As per the rules, he goes in the second rank due to the front being full of command models. However, when in combat he is able to use the 'make way' special rule in order to getinto B2B with the enemy (usually displacing the Musician or Banner - if i recall there is one of the command models that does not need to be in the front rank to be effective).

However, after combat is finished he moves back to the back rank as normal.

The ONLY advantage i have seen to this so far is to be able to protect him from canon-balls (because they are monstrous cavalry, it has to kill the first one in order to penetrate ranks).

Cy.

Avian
24-01-2011, 14:33
...if i recall there is one of the command models that does not need to be in the front rank to be effective).
Yes, the standard bearer.

WarmbloodedLizard
24-01-2011, 15:19
i always have characters in the second rank when playing with my ogres. (tyrant, musician, standard. rest in second rank.) I see people having a problem with the reform-trick, since - really - it probably is just a loophole, and I wouldn't use it myself. HOWEVER, I find it perfectly acceptable if someone tried to use it against me. it's in the rules. the designers might not have been the best and there can always be loopholes but it's still the rules. and with monthly FAQs it shouldn't take them too long to fix it if it really is one. if they don't fix it, then it just ist. no matter how little sense it makes or how much you dislike it. it also is in no way unsportsman-like, rather you would be unsportsman-like to refuse to play against a player who actually plays according to the rules. :)

just house/tournament-rule it, if you don't like it.

AlphariusOmegon20
24-01-2011, 16:55
Hmm, Skaven must be Fantasy's Alpha Legion, if other armies are trying to effectively use their rules...


LOL Even Alpha Legion isn't THAT sneaky.....AL does have SOME honor.


I usually move the Musician to the next rank when there isn't enough room for everyone, not the Hero.

Lord Inquisitor
24-01-2011, 17:43
I usually move the Musician to the next rank when there isn't enough room for everyone, not the Hero.
Bear in mind that you MUST leave the musician in the front rank when not in combat. In combat, you can use Make Way to bump the musician back. So not much of a difference in practical terms but it can matter in certain circumstances.

That said, you're probably better bumping the standard bearer as he doesn't need to be in B2B to get the +1, while the musician does have to be in contact to break ties.

Fuzzymoldyork
24-01-2011, 19:40
When I first read this post I was really surprised by this tactic. How cowardly is it to put your hero in the second rank when he/she should be up front. I had never heard about it until today so I selected the last response.

However, now that I had the chance to think about it a little more I have decided that this should be looked at in two different lights.

First and foremost is the casual setting. This can be best described as a game between friends or someone new you are playing. In this particular setting the tactic should not be used unless specifically agreed upon before hand. The tactic screams of cheese and is not a nice way to play with a stranger or friend.

The second setting is the tournament setting. In this setting all bets are off. If the tournament doesn't have a sportmanship score or you're in 'ard boyz then I would use it every time. The point of a tournament is to win, and if doing so requires you to use a little underhanded tactic, that isn't cheating, so be it.

amysrevenge
24-01-2011, 21:29
Anyone who said "Nope, never" - can you honestly say Never?

Imagine the following perfectly reasonable scenario.

You're playing playing Dwarfs against magic-heavy Lizardmen. Your only magic defense is your Runesmith with MRoBalance and a dispel rune. You have both a Lord on shieldbearers and your runesmith in a unit of Hammerers with full command - the 3 command characters plus Lord fill the entire front rank so the runesmith goes in the second rank, no shenanigans.

In the first round of combat against some Saurus, you accept the Saurus unit champion's challenge with your Gatekeeper (the Hammerer champion) and he dies.

Will you every time, without question (since you answered "Never"), always move the runesmith into the newly vacated front-rank spot rather than a normal RnF Hammerer? There are a pair of reasons why this might suck, in addition to the risk to the runesmith. First, the runesmith only hits at S4 rather than S6. Second, the runesmith's initiative has already passed (I believe the Saurus goes on I1 and the runesmith is I2) in this round, and thus you get no attacks at all from the runesmith when you would still get one with an ASL Hammerer.

While I'd do it most of the time, I wouldn't push the runesmith up every time, so I answered "every once in a while".

Ender Shadowkin
24-01-2011, 21:47
Hang tight, you should get a new book soonish, ;-)

rumors are rumors, and you can go through that forum here, but some signs indicate a new TK book this fall.



The second setting is the tournament setting. In this setting all bets are off. If the tournament doesn't have a sportmanship score or you're in 'ard boyz then I would use it every time. The point of a tournament is to win, and if doing so requires you to use a little underhanded tactic, that isn't cheating, so be it.

Generally that is why a lot of tournies have sports scores. There are a variety of things you can do during a game that is Win At All Costs (WAAC), that are often against the spirit of the game and tend to result in less fun if certaion warhammer/social conventions are not adhered to. Say humming loudly during every one of your opponents turns :evilgrin:.

But that's why Hardboys has a certain appeal, why you may not play all your games like that, once in a while can be a fun and challenging exercise.


Anyone who said "Nope, never" - can you honestly say Never?

Imagine the following perfectly reasonable scenario.

You're playing playing Dwarfs against magic-heavy Lizardmen. Your only magic defense is your Runesmith with MRoBalance and a dispel rune. You have both a Lord on shieldbearers and your runesmith in a unit of Hammerers with full command - the 3 command characters plus Lord fill the entire front rank so the runesmith goes in the second rank, no shenanigans.

In the first round of combat against some Saurus, you accept the Saurus unit champion's challenge with your Gatekeeper (the Hammerer champion) and he dies.

Will you every time, without question (since you answered "Never"), always move the runesmith into the newly vacated front-rank spot rather than a normal RnF Hammerer? There are a pair of reasons why this might suck, in addition to the risk to the runesmith. First, the runesmith only hits at S4 rather than S6. Second, the runesmith's initiative has already passed (I believe the Saurus goes on I1 and the runesmith is I2) in this round, and thus you get no attacks at all from the runesmith when you would still get one with an ASL Hammerer.

While I'd do it most of the time, I wouldn't push the runesmith up every time, so I answered "every once in a while".

Well yes :angel: . Your Runsmith probably has a much better save anyway, and you'll still get the S6 attack from the back rank as a supporting attack, lol.

The spirit of the question was more on whether you reformed to get your heroes back there or similarly loaded up the front of your units intentionally to hide charectors. Thats not really the case when your packing Shield bearers, or running ogres as sometimes it just has to happen that way (and frankly probably why they added those rules about charector placement when the front is full).

Looks like the majority of people are not doing this, its been tracking at 3 to 1 ratio for most of the poll. With several vocal supporters on either side. I guess a good follow up quesion is if you have ever lined up against somebody at a tournie or casual game and gotten angered/annoyed by your opponet reforming and what not to hide a character. Like I said in the original post. I've never seen it happen in actual games, just stories (and 1st person accounts from this thread, etc).

amysrevenge
24-01-2011, 21:54
The spirit of the question was more on whether you reformed to get your heroes back there or similarly loaded up the front of your units intentionally to hide charectors.

That's fair enough - I was probably reading more into it than was there. Just venting a bit. :P

TMATK
24-01-2011, 22:00
... I guess a good follow up quesion is if you have ever lined up against somebody at a tournie or casual game and gotten angered/annoyed by your opponet reforming and what not to hide a character. Like I said in the original post. I've never seen it happen in actual games, just stories (and 1st person accounts from this thread, etc).

My warhammer group consists of me and 1 friend, so it's easy to work out any issues.

If I was playing someone new, I would ask about this ahead of time and play it how ever he wanted. I would want to know before I made my list - no point in buying ward saves for my bsb and shaman if I can just put them in the 2nd rank all game.

ColShaw
24-01-2011, 22:25
Anyone who said "Nope, never" - can you honestly say Never?

Imagine the following perfectly reasonable scenario.

You're playing playing Dwarfs against magic-heavy Lizardmen. Your only magic defense is your Runesmith with MRoBalance and a dispel rune. You have both a Lord on shieldbearers and your runesmith in a unit of Hammerers with full command - the 3 command characters plus Lord fill the entire front rank so the runesmith goes in the second rank, no shenanigans.

In the first round of combat against some Saurus, you accept the Saurus unit champion's challenge with your Gatekeeper (the Hammerer champion) and he dies.

Will you every time, without question (since you answered "Never"), always move the runesmith into the newly vacated front-rank spot rather than a normal RnF Hammerer? There are a pair of reasons why this might suck, in addition to the risk to the runesmith. First, the runesmith only hits at S4 rather than S6. Second, the runesmith's initiative has already passed (I believe the Saurus goes on I1 and the runesmith is I2) in this round, and thus you get no attacks at all from the runesmith when you would still get one with an ASL Hammerer.

While I'd do it most of the time, I wouldn't push the runesmith up every time, so I answered "every once in a while".

No, I would never do it. ESPECIALLY when the chips are down. If you say "It's something you shouldn't do, and I understand that, so I'll only do it when it's important to win the game," you get no moral high ground at all. That, in my book, is like saying, "I'll protect people... unless I think I might get hurt" and expecting to be considered brave.

So no, I don't think it was the intention of the rules, and no, I won't do it. I'd let an opponent do it, if they can make the case for it, but in a friendly game, I'd make it clear I didn't agree with their interpretation, and in a tournament? Take it like a man.

enyoss
25-01-2011, 01:32
Anyone who said "Nope, never" - can you honestly say Never?

...

While I'd do it most of the time, I wouldn't push the runesmith up every time, so I answered "every once in a while".

Yup, I'd still never do it :D.

Tarian
25-01-2011, 07:25
Anyone who said "Nope, never" - can you honestly say Never?

Imagine the following perfectly reasonable scenario.

You're playing playing Dwarfs against magic-heavy Lizardmen. Your only magic defense is your Runesmith with MRoBalance and a dispel rune. You have both a Lord on shieldbearers and your runesmith in a unit of Hammerers with full command - the 3 command characters plus Lord fill the entire front rank so the runesmith goes in the second rank, no shenanigans.

In the first round of combat against some Saurus, you accept the Saurus unit champion's challenge with your Gatekeeper (the Hammerer champion) and he dies.

Will you every time, without question (since you answered "Never"), always move the runesmith into the newly vacated front-rank spot rather than a normal RnF Hammerer? There are a pair of reasons why this might suck, in addition to the risk to the runesmith. First, the runesmith only hits at S4 rather than S6. Second, the runesmith's initiative has already passed (I believe the Saurus goes on I1 and the runesmith is I2) in this round, and thus you get no attacks at all from the runesmith when you would still get one with an ASL Hammerer.

While I'd do it most of the time, I wouldn't push the runesmith up every time, so I answered "every once in a while".

I'd push him up every time, then again, I'd push up my T3 Mage hero with no save as well. I'd never put a regular R&F member into the front rank (barring command units) if there's a character *not* in the front rank.

Korraz
25-01-2011, 09:27
Space in the Front = Runesmith moves up. Champion gets killed = Butcher moves up. If there's space, the character goes to the front.

Artinam
25-01-2011, 13:49
Any Bretonnian Knight will never think of doing something dishonorable as that trick. Then again, the Lance Formation rules prevent it (explains characters always go in the front and that Command models keep working even in 2nd or third rank.

Damsels excluded off course...

No I wouldn't do it, feels not intended in the rules with the reform trick.

amysrevenge
25-01-2011, 15:05
Just so we're clear, there are people out there (not me, but some people argue this) that would argue that you're not allowed to move the character up without an actual Combat Reform, even if you wanted to...

Moving RnF into the hole is not a change in formation, but moving a character into the hole kind of is.

TMATK
25-01-2011, 15:07
Just so we're clear, there are people out there (not me, but some people argue this) that would argue that you're not allowed to move the character up without an actual Combat Reform, even if you wanted to...

Moving RnF into the hole is not a change in formation, but moving a character into the hole kind of is.

Well, they can "make way".

In the midst of combat, I wouldn't require the character jump up if he didn't want to. As I said before, I just use the Make Way rule all the time - characters have to move up to the front in the movement phase, after combat, and if there is room.

TsukeFox
25-01-2011, 20:42
Cowardly is the sorry soul who bunkers his characters behind RnF and is as great a war crime as power scrolling a nuke spell.
I would exclude ogres since they can have 3 wide ranked units and it is hard to move troops that are 120mm-160mm wide and optamism combat effectivEness by trying to get 160mm worth guys into combat. The honorable thing to do is to move up whatever character up once the unit champ dies-Or not buy the unit champ. It is a hard grey line that ogre players have to deal with.
But personally GW should not have created ogre kingdoms in the first place and instead try to tone down the uber cheese of 4th-5th edition chaos dwarfs.

drear
25-01-2011, 20:53
i had not heard of people using the rules to reform , leaving a character in teh second rank, but maintaining a 5 or wider frontage.
this is a very wide interpritation of a rule, and i belive it was not meant to be played like it.


however, i see the tactic of having a caster in the second rank, or a fragile character a good one. aslong as your filling the front rank out with command + characters/heros etc so they can sit in the second rank.

an example of where it is used frequently would be ogre kingdoms armies with butchers in the second rank , so they dont get harmed as easily in combat, or within high elves etc to place a vunerable caster like teclis in the second rank, when making a big powerhouse unit .

i feel there are ways of doing it politley, and to the rules, and ways of being rude and -mis- interperating the rules.

scruffyryan
25-01-2011, 20:56
Yeah I guess I haven't seen the reform cheese at all, Our high elf player bunkers his mage behind caradryan, a tough bsb and the command group of his phoenix guard but he has 2 other chars, not some reform trick, i'd probably call lame on the reform trick too.

Avian
25-01-2011, 20:57
Just so we're clear, there are people out there (not me, but some people argue this) that would argue that you're not allowed to move the character up without an actual Combat Reform, even if you wanted to...
Reforms and Make Way, yeah. I am willing to pay a small amount of money to the first person able to find any other rule in the current rulebook that clearly allows a character to move up to the first rank.

I'm actually quite strict on moving characters within units and I don't allow people to move characters around as they please.

H33D
25-01-2011, 21:22
Well, after a character does a make way move, it is 'required' to move to the front rank.. but yeah I don't see anything that allows you to move characters around willy nilly.

Ender Shadowkin
25-01-2011, 21:26
Yeah I guess I haven't seen the reform cheese at all, Our high elf player bunkers his mage behind caradryan, a tough bsb and the command group of his phoenix guard

Whats a tough HE BSB :p . I was over on another forum and some guy posted that he always uses the reform tactic because HE BSBs are impossiblly soft and he did not want to waste points on expensive items. Which was what drove me to start this poll. I wouldn't call them impossible soft, but tough? huh? lol


Reforms and Make Way, yeah. I am willing to pay a small amount of money to the first person able to find any other rule in the current rulebook that clearly allows a character to move up to the first rank.

I'm actually quite strict on moving characters within units and I don't allow people to move characters around as they please.

Can't you just leave the unit and re-join it the same turn? I vaguely recal their might be a rule against that... hmmm.

Da Crusha
25-01-2011, 23:17
8th edition has way too many loophole rules, like what the heck is up with not being able to thunderstomp crewman?

enyoss
25-01-2011, 23:22
Can't you just leave the unit and re-join it the same turn? I vaguely recal their might be a rule against that... hmmm.

But doesn't the unit then lose it's ability to move? Probably easiest to just do a quick reform.

DaemonReign
26-01-2011, 00:14
8th edition has way too many loophole rules, like what the heck is up with not being able to thunderstomp crewman?

yeah I somehow don't think we'll play it like that whenever it comes up. It's ridiculous.

Stomps should have effect on Cav as well, unless it has Barding of course..

Loopholes.. Don't know if this counts as loopholes really.. Just small dumb stuff that arises out of GW obviously favoring broad-lined general rules instead of going into the fluffy details of it all.. The latter which they must know that we, the players, ultimately would prefer..

Another example is the "use magic items while fleeing" FAQ of late.

Magic Armour and latent Items that might help you rally, sure! - Dispel Scrolls and other "activation"-items, what are you smoking..?

Not to mention the "My Bloodthirster has Strength 10 but not really" solution to Gifts and Stomp.

Anyways, on topic.. ehh.. I think I've made my case on this issue already: Characters go in the Front rank unless there's no space (i.e. command plus 2 other chars minimum) and the alternative is really just cheating.

ewar
26-01-2011, 00:20
The whole move is a cop out - if you don't want a squishy character killed, play well and keep him out of combat. Don't go against the most important rule by leaving him in the back rank.

Would I stop someone doing it? No. Would I be wowed by their generalship? Not in the slightest.

DaemonReign
26-01-2011, 00:27
The whole move is a cop out - if you don't want a squishy character killed, play well and keep him out of combat. Don't go against the most important rule by leaving him in the back rank.

Would I stop someone doing it? No. Would I be wowed by their generalship? Not in the slightest.

I definately would stop someone from doing it. If I so had to thunder stomp the guy myself.

And this blabbering about "make way" and "reform" that I see above in this thread is just redundant too:

Use the "Step Up" rule and that's all you need. Characters are "first in line" to Step Up as soon as there's a casualty in the front rank. The only possible solution.

But hey, please whine to GW about this so that I can stack my T3 Daemon Heralds in the back-ranks of my 50+ Bloodletter Hordes. That'll be alot of fun for sure.

*I would go on here but I am just gonna insult people left and right so..*

Skitter-Squeek
26-01-2011, 00:39
If I see anyone doing that in Vegas this year I will promptly be pointing out their jackassery for all to see. People who search out ways to break or bend rules are the ones that can't depend on their skills to win games, all the more fun to completely destroy on the table top though.


Squeek

Lord Inquisitor
26-01-2011, 01:35
Reforms and Make Way, yeah. I am willing to pay a small amount of money to the first person able to find any other rule in the current rulebook that clearly allows a character to move up to the first rank.

I'm actually quite strict on moving characters within units and I don't allow people to move characters around as they please.
Yep. While one character moving up if a character in front is killed can be inferred, it isn't explicit. Even worse, if a champion is killed, it explicitly states rank-and-file must move up.


Well, they can "make way".
It is a little vague, but I really don't know if you can Make Way outside of the beginning of a combat. I'd like to know but for the time being I'd have to say I think you can only do it at the beginning of combat and that can leave a character stranded if he kills all models in contact and can't reform.


Use the "Step Up" rule and that's all you need. Characters are "first in line" to Step Up as soon as there's a casualty in the front rank. The only possible solution.
Now I totally agree with you, but particularly with champions it isn't RAW.

I firmly believe the intent is that any characters in second or subsequent ranks get bumped forward as soon as a space becomes available, it just isn't in the rules and sadly this still hasn't been addressed by FAQ.

scarletsquig
26-01-2011, 01:46
Bretonnian characters can make great use of this rule, especially the damsels who are supposed to be second-rankers.

Works well for minotaur BSB's and other monstrous infantry/cavalry too.

isanti13
26-01-2011, 06:31
Not many armies can actually do this. Daemons for example will never usually take enough characters to start being able to stack characters in the back ranks. Same with most armies. Skaven can do this the easiest and so can gobbos.

I personally do it in my skaven army, but I get my BSB in the 2nd rank by filling out the front rank with characters. Totally legal and I don't have much of a problem if anyone does it. If someone were to try to do the 3wide thing and then reform... yea, that is stretching the rules quite a bit in my opinion.

Artinam
26-01-2011, 13:29
Bretonnians have an exception for this in the normal rules trough the lance formation (even with the Command Figure thing. Their rules state Characters have preference and the Command models are moved behind them (and still work as described in their armybook).

pacmanswang
26-01-2011, 19:09
i regularly run my shieldbearer lord in the same unit as my battle standard bearer. If i'm playing defensively i'm not going 6 wide just to get the BSB in the front. any other time he'll be right up in the fray, though i don't mind people doing it.

as far as i'm concerned if people want to use the literal rules they have every right to, it'll just make it sweeter when you get the win against them anyway

Lord Inquisitor
26-01-2011, 21:30
I don't think anyone has any issue with you stashing your BSB in the second rank if the first is legitimately full. What people are complaining about is sticking your BSB in a unit with no other characters and using a reform to put him in the second rank even though there are rank and file models in front of him.

Caitsidhe
27-01-2011, 13:55
I could really care less about the issue. I don't mind when other people do it. I do it to cycle my BSB back, not so much for protection but because he denies me a shot with a Glade Guard Longbow. My unit rarely ever sees close combat. To me the whole business of complaining about it is kind of silly.

Tregar
27-01-2011, 14:19
I really have to load my gobbo units with characters; my general, then my BSB (For Standard of Disipline), and 3 command models, and going wider than 5 models is suicide. So, sometimes I join a Shaman to that unit, and either the Shaman or BSB goes to the 2nd rank. Hopefully no-one minds that...

AlphariusOmegon20
27-01-2011, 16:43
Bear in mind that you MUST leave the musician in the front rank when not in combat. In combat, you can use Make Way to bump the musician back. So not much of a difference in practical terms but it can matter in certain circumstances.

That said, you're probably better bumping the standard bearer as he doesn't need to be in B2B to get the +1, while the musician does have to be in contact to break ties.

Citation please?

The reasoning why I bump the musician to the second rank is of the "drop the flag" rule. Anyone in the unit can pick up the flag. Only the musician can use the instrument.

TMATK
27-01-2011, 16:49
Citation please?

The reasoning why I bump the musician to the second rank is of the "drop the flag" rule. Anyone in the unit can pick up the flag. Only the musician can use the instrument.

P95, "Onwards Men!"

You don't need to put the musician in the 2nd rank to be protected. Only the champion can be singled out in CC.

sulla
30-01-2011, 02:51
I don't think anyone has any issue with you stashing your BSB in the second rank if the first is legitimately full. What people are complaining about is sticking your BSB in a unit with no other characters and using a reform to put him in the second rank even though there are rank and file models in front of him.It's sad that players resort to this kind of gamesmanship, but it's even sadder that GW released a set of rules that made it so dangerous for fighter characters to be in combat. In armies with vulnerable fighter characters, you often only see a bsb and spellcasters. :( Fun, characterful models like death hags (other than those lugging a cauldron around) and wardancer nobles and slaaneshi heralds have almost completely disappeared from the battlefield.

Mid'ean
30-01-2011, 19:16
I personally don't see or find a problem with it. I believe that GW is giving players some more tactical options on what to do with your characters than serving up your squishy wizards up on a platter to whoever is in the front row. Do I do it with every character. Hell no!. My combat characters are in the front row doing what they do best, killing the enemy. If they get killed then they get killed. But I put my great shamans and other wizards in the 2nd row to do what they do best, support the army. If some are still stuck in the dogma of the older editions that all characters must absolutely-no questions-always go in the front row....well times and editions are charging...Just my 2c.......I and the people I play enjoy the game. Enjoy the tactics involved and don't knock people for new ideas.....:)