Jump to content

Reach support help


Recommended Posts

Let me start out by stating that anyone who hates Rules Lawyers should PLEASE click the back button and ignore this topic!! ::D:

 

Whew, now that they're gone, we can get into a rule I saw someone try to 'break' at ReaperCon, and it really made me think.

 

Lets start with the rulebook definition of the Reach SA:

If a model with the Reach Special Ability is in Base-to-base contact with a friendly Model's rear base side; the friendly Model gains a Reach Close Combat Situational Modifier Bonus of +1.

 

ONE:

Everyone will agree that the helmeted Orc in the picture below gives the bald Orc a +1 Reach Bonus.

PlusOneReach.jpg

 

 

ODDITY

Turn the bald Orc sideways so his 'rear' is no longer to the helmeted Orc, and the bald Orc loses the Reach bonus.

NoReach.jpg

 

 

RULE ABUSE?

Put both Orcs back to back alongside the enemy. Now EACH Orc gives the Reach Bonus to the other Orc!!

PlusTwoReach.jpg

 

I wasn't playing in the game that this happened it, and what DID happen in that game was the defending player said 'I don't think so' and the attacking player backed off and didn't do it.

 

As a Rules Lawyer by heart, I often struggle with what falls into the 'abuse' category and what falls into the 'brilliant tactics' category. I will always stear clear of anything generally considered 'abuse', but I love analyzing the games I play to discover new tactics, and I won't ignore some brilliant strategy unless it is generally agreed to be poor sportsmanship.

 

Is this 'clever tactics'? Rule abuse? What would you do if your opponent tried it?

 

What are people's thoughts on this? PLEASE keep it civil. I am trying to determine what people think of this, not trying to start a fight. :B):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not a rules lawyer by far, but I think this to be abuse. I'm all for people finding new tactics, but this seems ridiculous to me. If I was playing against someone who was adamant about this I would pick up my minis and go home. After reading this it seems harsh to me, but I don't mean it to be its just how I feel.

 

Love the skin tones on that ogre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a mechanics perspective, the bonus clearly applies to both of the back-to-back models - they meet the definition.

 

From a fluff perspective, they both know their backs are covered by a model that specializes in covering backs, and can focus on the offense.

 

Seems fine to me, no "lawyering" necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Clearly that does not appear to be the intention of the rule. Looks like it needs some doctoring. I'd say if a model is in base to base with an enemy it cannot give a reach bonus. Quick fix and I believe that's in keeping with the spirit of the rule. Too bad the second printing is out. Heh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, this is the fourth time this subject has been discussed.

 

There is only one person who can decide "designer's intent" - the designer. Unless he issues an errata, does anyone have a rule reference that would invalidate the back-to-back bonus situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the three situations posted, neither the "Oddity" nor the "Rules Abuse" is in fact a legal situation.

 

The "Oddity" case is simple: The attacking model does not lose the support bonus. There is no "side" facing in Warlord, only a single "Rear" side (unless you have the 360 SA), and "front" (all non-Rear facings).

 

The "Rules Abuse" example is simply and blatantly illegal: Reach requires the supported model's rear to be in contact with the supporting model's front facing. Which, as described above, is any facing except its own rear.

 

The most abusive method of employing Reach is to place the attacking models such that the model with Reach is in its ally's rear facing, but both models have a front facing in contact with the target. (At least the first model will, thus, have its 'side' to the target). This allows one supported attack and one unsupported attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reach:

 

If a Model with the Reach SA is in base-to-base contact with a friendly Model's rear base side; the friendly model gains the CCSM Bonus of +1........as long as the model with Reach is in Base-to base contact with the rear base side of the of the friendly Model's it is supporting.

 

 

I don't see anywhere where it says the Model with Reach has to have it's front base side in contact with the allied Model. So technically Gus is right in my opinion. It does smack of "cheez" though. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, technically it's right but it's pretty clearly not the intent. Not to pretend I understand all the decisions that the designers made, but if that was the intent it would be called "Support" instead of Reach. They don't just work well together, one guy is litterally attacking _past_ another. The illustrations in the book clearly define the intent.

 

If someone actually argued this then they've completely lost the entire point of the game. It's supposed to be simple, intuitive and fast. Trying to work around the obvious intent of a rule as simple as this one is really a waste of time. Just finding a loophole doesn't make it a good idea to abuse it.

 

Ultimately it's up to the individual game groups to decide on how to use these simple rules, how to modify them, and how to interpret them. If everyone in a group wants to have the most powerful (per point) units in the game being back to back spearmen, then go for it. However you can reconcile that in your head is fine by me. But if I actually went to an open game at a Con or Tournament and someone tried that I'd expect a quick and decisive response from whatever judge or host was on hand...

 

Maybe I'm just being pig-headed, but I honestly can't see how anyone might think that the design intended for Reach to be used in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty clearly this was not the intent of the rule, although the way the rule reads it is perfectly valid.

 

The rule should read

 

'if a Model with the Reach SA is in base-to-base contact with a friendly Model's rear base side; the friendly model gains the CCSM Bonus of +1........as long as the model with Reach is in Base-to base contact with the rear base side of the of the friendly Model's it is supporting AND IS OPPOSITE THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSING ENEMY MODEL.

 

just my opinion, perhaps someone else can find a better wording. But all in all, we all know what the rule intends to represent; Kudos to the person who broke it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring me up to speed on valid attacks. Is a "side to front" contact a valid attack position? I thought you had to have the front side of your base in contact to attack.

From page 47 of the rulebook:

FRONT SIDE BASES

For game purposes a Model's Base is said to only have two sides: front and rear.  Since square and rectangles obviously have four real sides, three of the four sides are considered the Model's front.  The final side is considered the rear.

 

 

 

The "Oddity" case is simple: The attacking model does not lose the support bonus. There is no "side" facing in Warlord, only a single "Rear" side (unless you have the 360 SA), and "front" (all non-Rear facings).

SUPPORT: is in base-to-base contact with a friendly Model's rear base side

Yes, he clearly does lose the support bonus. The definition of Support says the supporting model has to be in the attacking model's rear. In the 'Oddity' case, he is in the attacking model's front side (see above rule on facing).

 

The "Rules Abuse" example is simply and blatantly illegal: Reach requires the attacking model's rear to be in contact with the supporting model's front facing. Which, as described above, is any facing except its own rear.

SUPPORT: is in base-to-base contact with a friendly Model's rear base side

Can you quote a rule that says it has to be the supporting model's front facing? The SA description does not use the word 'front'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, sure can't quote a rule. And that's fine. The intent is clear enough...

After the above discussion, I agree with you. And to be fair, no one pushed to do this. One guy asked his opponent if he could, his opponent said 'I don't think so', and the guy said ok, no problem. That was all. It just got me thinking, so I wanted to collect everyone's thoughts. ^_^

 

To be clear - I personally would not attempt this in a game other than against my mean old brother, who beats me in 90% of our games! <_<:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...