Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Azazel

Reach

Recommended Posts

I'd further back that up with the discussions we've had about SAs that involve hitting all the models on a base side, where models on the corners count as being effectively on both of the sides that intersect at that corner.

 

~v

 

 

The trouble is Vince, that in the discussion on Swing-Through back in Oct last year, Gus stated that the corners are NOT part of both sides.

 

http://www.reapermin...through__st__15

 

Careful, that's not actually what was said in that thread. The last two posts from Gus and I clarify that the singular point of the corner of a base exists as a part of both sides. What that thread dispels is the notion that being on the flat of one base side and overhanging the corner with your base makes you in contact with a second base side. Contacting exactly on the singular point of the base's corner, however, puts you in contact with both base sides, at least in as far as a SA like Swing-through is concerned. As such, I can see the argument for a Reach model, exactly on the point of a friendly model, being able to provide support to either of the base sides opposite that point.

 

~v

 

OK, so the corner pt. is NOT part of both sides unless you are only contacting the corner pt, in which case it IS part of both sides. Is that what you are saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close. The point is part of both sides, but the only way to be in contact with that point is to be *only* in contact with the point, and not with either of the sides that create the point. I think the best way to envision it is as if the base were actually a picture frame:

 

frame-close-upresize.jpg

 

You can clearly see where one "side" stops (because of the 45 degree joint in the wood), and where the other begins; at the corner, both "sides" exist together. Thus, when you have a flat base side to flat base side contact, even if one or both extend past the corner, you are never in contact with the 2nd base side. Only when you are on the actual corner itself (either flat-to-corner, or corner-to-corner) are you in contact with both base sides at once.

 

~v

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close. The point is part of both sides, but the only way to be in contact with that point is to be *only* in contact with the point, and not with either of the sides that create the point. I think the best way to envision it is as if the base were actually a picture frame:

 

frame-close-upresize.jpg

 

You can clearly see where one "side" stops (because of the 45 degree joint in the wood), and where the other begins; at the corner, both "sides" exist together. Thus, when you have a flat base side to flat base side contact, even if one or both extend past the corner, you are never in contact with the 2nd base side. Only when you are on the actual corner itself (either flat-to-corner, or corner-to-corner) are you in contact with both base sides at once.

 

~v

 

 

 

So geometry aside, the single point at the corner is, in Warlord terms, 2 halves, each belonging to 1 side but not the other. I love it! dry.gif Rules lawyer complicated! Would it not be simpler to follow actual geometry and allow swing-through (via the perpendicular side) against bases that overlap/extend beyond the corner point of a side? This happens once to a player before they engage at other than a 90-degree angle and eliminates complcated rules dealing the the corner pt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only complicated if you make it so. In fact, what you propose seems far more "rules lawyer"-y to me. ::): Swing through, or any other SA for that matter, has never worked the way you suggest, in any iteration of Warlord.

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question I have to ask not yet having a rule book: If a model that is B2B is removed, does the model behind it with Reach lose the benefit?

 

Hi Ddot,

 

Yes, if the intervening model(s) are killed then the reach model cannot use a reach attack. Unless of course you move a new soldier into the B2B position to fill the hole created by the earlier loss(es). Then the reach model can attack on their next activation as long as the SA is satisfied. This can create a situation where you have a friendly model in B2B with an enemy that is in a different troop. If you activate the troop with the reach model, it can attack with reach. If the enemy doesn't have reach, it can only take defensive swings on the B2B model. Can be a really effective tool if you keep running in popcorn troops to cover for more valuable reach soldiers. I'm just sayin'. <_<

DRG

That makes sense. I'm thinking Demon imps (with Provoke) and Broken Fodder (7 pts a pop) for "popcorn" and some specialized models for Reach combat. (cough Guros cough)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only complicated if you make it so. In fact, what you propose seems far more "rules lawyer"-y to me. smile.gif Swing through, or any other SA for that matter, has never worked the way you suggest, in any iteration of Warlord.

 

~v

 

 

One of the advantages to playing in TX with the designers of the game. The way it is 'supposed' to be played or 'intended' to be played is not always how the rule is, in fact, written in the book. Just playing devil's advocate here. Though I DO think that splitting the end point/corner point into 2 halves, because of the way the rule is supposed to play & the rules of geometry conflict with the way the rule is written, is a bit silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×