spiritual_exorcist Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 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. Please don't keep pushing peoples buttons. I come here to discuss things I enjoy with rational people, whether I see eye to eye with them or not. I really don't want to see a discussion that has obviously been closed continue to spill over into every Warlord thread on the forum. Let it die, everyone has had the chance to say their peace and has done so. We don't need the Warlord section as a whole to become entirely locked down over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Froggy the Great Posted June 1, 2005 Moderator Share Posted June 1, 2005 Agreed. So what we have is two Reach-equipped models back to back, bith with front (side) contact with the same model. Is it stated anywhere in Reach's description that the Reaching model must have his front (emphasis for clarity) in contact with the supportee's back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperbryan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) I am unaware of anywhere that it states anything like that - it appears to only state that the reaching model must be in contact with the "reachee's" back side. Edited June 1, 2005 by Reaperbryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 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. I think the key word is support. Somewhere in the rules it states that only non-attacking models can lend support. Therefore the model with reach would still have to give up its attack to provide the support. Skipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Froggy the Great Posted June 2, 2005 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2005 A model can attack and support at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vil-hatarn Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Can a model provide a reach bonus and attack at the same time? Say there was a setup like this, with E being enemies, A being allies and R the unit with reach: E A E R Does A get the reach modifier if R is attacking the enemy next to him? By the way the reach ability and it's limitations are described, I don't think it does, but while we're on the topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 A model can attack and support at the same time... I don't believe so, page 62 top paragraph states that "Models always lend support....even if they might be conducting an action OTHR THAN CLOSE COMBAT" meaning that if they are conducting close combat they cannot add support. Skipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vil-hatarn Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 No, that just means that even if they aren't actively fighting, they give support. For example, say a model used two non-combat actions to initiate base-to-base combat. They still give support, even though they didn't attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I don't believe so, page 62 top paragraph states that "Models always lend support....even if they might be conducting an action OTHR THAN CLOSE COMBAT" meaning that if they are conducting close combat they cannot add support. I see how that might appear so, but "even if" and "only if" are two slightly different phrases. It's fair to say the language of the rule might need further clarification in future printings or errata. I still interpret the statement to be there only to make it clear that a non-combat-action such as spellcasting or rallying does not disallow a model from lending support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 No, that just means that even if they aren't actively fighting, they give support. For example, say a model used two non-combat actions to initiate base-to-base combat. They still give support, even though they didn't attack. I'm not so sure on this, I've look at it both ways and over here we interpret this to mean that they can't support. It might be a good opic to get an official ruling on Skipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Hmmm, back to back...if they reach out with a polearm it doesnt look like they are supporting each other. I always envisioned "Reach" wih models behind the other... isnt that why they have a polearm on the mini so they can reach over the meatshield and stabbith thou in the squinty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abngi Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Reach doesn't mean you have a polearm, though most models with Reach have polearms. It just means you have a special melee buff ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Landt Posted June 2, 2005 Author Share Posted June 2, 2005 Reach doesn't mean you have a polearm, though most models with Reach have polearms. It just means you have a special melee buff ability. abngi, you are the king of seperating fluff from game mechanics! I have a terrible time doing that most of the time. My gut instinct is what Inquisitor said, but when you examine it, the name of the SA implying you have a pole arm is fluff, as it isn't necessarily supported by the mechanics (as evidenced by this whole thread). I think all the players who have a problem with using this tactic are those who don't make such a clear seperation of fluff & mechanics. You and your clarity are a great assett to the boards! 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.