Spartan6 Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 LOL Kudo's for finding this though Gus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Would not the two back-to-back orcs get support anyway, without needing to invoke "reach"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwyksilver Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Would not the two back-to-back orcs get support anyway, without needing to invoke "reach"? The point is they would give both Support and Reach Close Combat Situational Modifiers to their attacks. +2 each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Well... you're right. It still seemed like a cheat to me. I've always thought the Reach SA meant a model could support from behind (either because he had a pike, spear or really long arms)..and in turn not be able to be struck back at for the same reason. From what I have been reading though, Support is interpreted as a situation bonus rather than an actual second model getting in a swing from over the front-guy's shoulder. Anyway, here is how this very situation was addressed in THIS TOPIC. So if two back-to-back reach-equipped models engage an enemy, do they both get to attack and provide the other with their reach bonus? the front side part of base-to base contact referred to the allied models front side being in contact with the enemy - not whether you were in contact with the enemy's front. And no hurtings, I promise. So if two back-to-back reach-equipped models engage an enemy, do they both get to attack and provide the other with their reach bonus? Yeppers - they also each provide a Support buff. Pairs of Reach models can carry a nice little danger zone around with them. Personally, I picture Reach not as "I have a long weapon" but rather "I am trained to guard somebody's back, allowing them to focus more on offense". In the rulesbook it says that Reach-type support can be given by one model to more than one friendly model so long as it's in B2B contact with the rear side of both models it's supporting...which suggests that a model could Reach and Support both at the same time. RB should know. He's the Reven-Guru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Froggy the Great Posted May 29, 2005 Moderator Share Posted May 29, 2005 How about this example: [bIG MONSTER] [1][2] Both 1 and 2 have the Reach SA. The rear face of [1] is facing downward. [2]'s rear face is leftward. 1 gets a +1 for normal B2B support. Does [2] get a +2 then, one from B2B support, one from [1]'s Reach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Ugh math make Spike's head hurt! Anyway, I think in your case the attacker with his rear side facing downward (face facing the monster) would get to attack the monster just as normal as well as lend Reach-type support to 2's attack because they are both attacking the same model and one of 1's sides is in B2B with 2's rear side. And 2 would get to attack the monster as normal, as well as get the support bonus because 1 is attacking the monster also, as well as gain another plus for 1's Reach-type support.... that is, if I am understanding RB and Abgni's statements correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushmaster Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Though I don't like it , from what I've read in this and a few other similar topics , I seems to be a valid situation , although cheesy !!!! I , for one would not use becuase I don't feel that this was the intent of the game mechanics , but if my opponent had to use this tactic , .....well it seems valid . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Cheesy yes..and add in the sillyness factor of two grown orcs standing booty-to-booty... disarmingly funny.. might in fact be a good tactic. It'd be nice to hear something official, but seriously, I doubt the situation will arise very often, or it would've come up sooner, like in beta-testing. Wait... I just had a bizarre thought, Lanse. Is your big monster on a square base or a CD? If he's on a CD, I think it would be geometrically impossible to have 1 and 2 in B2B with each other AND both in B2B with the monster. Ugh.. geometry hard.. make Spike's head hurt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Froggy the Great Posted May 29, 2005 Moderator Share Posted May 29, 2005 I envisioned my example along the lines of two Orc hunters fighting against the Krung Beast or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Baasen Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 The fun part of running a tournament: the 'Bad Form' moves are agreed upon by all players. If everyone is in agreement, then the rule stands. But if only one person disagrees with the 'Bad Form', then the move is not allowed and we move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abngi Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 What exactly is it that makes people think the back-to-back bonus situation is cheesy? Look at real combat: you get flanked, you're toast, unless someone is there to cover you. Look at real melee: you put your back to a wall when outnumbered. Look at movie life: how many times do you see the heroes NOT go back-to-back and survive? If you were out with a buddy in a danger zone, would you split up to check the shadows? Obviously, I don't have a problem with the mutual buff party. What I can'f figure out is why an extra +1 buff that you are paying skill points to get so hard to accept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 It's not that the ruling is cheesy, but the visuals are cheesy. Imagine if you will in a less abstract sense, two fighters with their long spears or pikes sidling up to a monster do-si-dos style and then clobbering it. Funny? Admit it. Anyway, RB's statement (he oughtta know) tells me it's a fair move so I got no complaints... except that I never thought of it before myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Froggy the Great Posted May 31, 2005 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2005 As it happened, the player who tried this then went on to fail both the attack rolls by way more than the extra +1 the "cheesy" move would have granted him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bribba Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I agree, this is an abuse of a loophole, however legal it may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchish2 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Cheese cheating or strategy? Strategy is just using the situation to your advantage. In this case, the situation happens to be that someone studied the rules very well and others didn't. This is no different than studying the board to find a bottle neck and ambush the opponent. In my book it was an excellent use of the situation. Cheeting- "intentionally breaking the rules""adding 1050 points to 1000 on purpose" "weighted dice" etc, this clearly is not the same thing Cheese-I would call an 1000 point 18 archer elven army, cheesey as can be, but you see 100 people in the forum mad that they can't do it anymore. I don't think this falls into that category either. When trying to rule on something, just consider the big 3. Cheese, cheeting, or strategy. This one happens to be stategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.