Brother Glacius

I'll take that

That is actually Rcnjack's point. Here is his quote: His whole point is that those maneuvers, ie reforms, can only happen in the Remaining Moves sub-phase. They cannot happen in the compulsory move sub-phase. To me, this is a much more clear rule that shuts down the reform for squig hoppers. As to the argument that the 3d6 roll becomes their movement value, well the rules for random movement don't state that. It says the unit is simply moved that number. It does not define that roll as anything else. As hard as it does seem, the rules simply don't support a unit of random movement models the ability to reform during the movement phase.

@Flava - It also needs to be said that it is up to the community to police itself. I have an 18 year old son that just did something incredibly selfish and immature which resulted in someone else being hurt very deeply. It is my responsibility as a parent to let him know how what he did is being perceived, and the weight of the consequences. The tactic being discussed (not the individual) is going to be perceived negatively by the majority of players. That needs to be shared. Hopefully that player will read this thread and understand where we are coming from. It would then be my hope that this tactic isn't used again. But yes, someone has to come forward and say that.

On a side note, regarding the tactic used against NtK, I find that very questionable. Warhammer already has a well defined staple mandate of no model moving more than twice its MV value in almost every situation. GW points out that restriction in a multitude of places. So to then reform your unit into a conga line moving X distance, rolling your random movement of Y, and then reforming again Z distance when you didn't make it...is clearly in violation of that mandate. And what happened if he did hit the enemy unit? Did he stay in his conga line? or did he spread out again? So I can clearly see why people are reacting strongly to this. It doesn't sound friendly on paper at all.

Most of this stuff is still available.

I'm sorry folks, I couldn't help but read the rules involved and I think there are a few things that clear this up: A) random movement - "if two or more models in the unit have the random movement special rule, pivot the unit about its centre,..." B) random movement - "Models with the Random Movement special rule do not have a Movement characteristic..." now add this rule from Skirmishers under Free Reform - "provided that no model ends up moving a number of inches higher than double its Move value." Rule A clearly states that when you have more than one model in the unit (which squig hoppers would apply), that you pivot about the center when picking the direction it moves. Rules quoted in B clearly point out that you have no Move value for the unit, so with no Move value, you can't reform at all as any distance would be over. The die roll is not a movement value for the unit, it is a distance that the unit is moved. A subtle difference, but an important one. Also, under the compulsory moves section it states "Aside from fleeing troops, units that are forced to move in the Compulsory Moves sub-phase otherwise follow the normal movement rules, unless clearly stated." Now this may seem to favor the "I can reform" side. However, the rules for random movement are clearly stated. It says you can pivot, and then move the direction on the die roll. It doesn't state you can do anything else. Also, the Random Movement section talks about "move, charge, pursue, overrun, and flee - they cannot march" doesn't ever state reform. At best, I could see an argument to allow the squig hoppers to reform at the end of the move, as long as no model moves more than the distance rolled. However, in general, there seems to be too many conflicting rules. And Random Movement does take precedence over Skirmisher due to the fact that the normal movement rules are overruled by compulsory movement.

well some of us were not there to see who got what. that is what I'd like to know.

I think with space like that, you need to hold the 1st annual OFCC nerf gun battle.

The succubus model is so much better.

Did any of you actually read what I posted? or just skimmed it? Sheesh.

So if undead is touching their coin, do they get any benefit?

Dibs on the long fangs!

Update to my blog! One morghast down, another one on the way.

Well when it doesn't conflict with the Portland Strollathon, I'll consider it. :P

Just wondering.

StrongBad!

Wow, everyone loves holding on to warmaster I guess. :)

So I think I want to get champ status for this, what are the current fees?

I did quite a bit, but I haven't uploaded them yet.

Its in the definition of a unit. The only time you can be out of coherency, according to the rules, is by casualties inflicted by enemy shooting. That's it. And Pax, you aren't redeploying the IC and the Unit, you are deploying the Unit, which the IC has already been declared a part of. And since you can't detach him from the unit, except in the Movement phase, that means he must stay with them for redeployment as well.

Please make your case. Tell me where deploying a UNIT a second time allows ICs to leave it. Context for these rules are for a unit. A unit with scout. Not units...not models...but a unit. A single entity that is well defined in the rules. An entity that has coherency rules. Please show me where the rules state that when redeploying that unit, it allows you to remove ICs and/or allows you to be out of coherency. I can show you where units must deploy in coherency. I can show you where it states when an IC can leave a unit. I can show you exceptions to coherency. None of those places mentions redeployment. So where exactly are you looking?

Instead you have specific rules about units, and coherency, and then you have rules about IC's joining and leaving units. And in none of those, does it mention an exception during redeployment where he can leave the unit, or go out of coherency. No where in the redeployment does it mention an exception to coherency or ICs...and yet you still want to create one. It doesn't have to say you can't because it has already said that elsewhere. Therefore, you need it to say you can. But it doesn't, and no where in the discussion has that been shown.

by the way, page 166 of the small rulebook, talking about ICs..."He cannot join or leave a unit during any other phase..."

I think GW put in the word "model" because they knew people would claim that the "unit" would have to be moved the distance, as it was arranged on the table. Because for some odd reason, gamers have to over think every freaking word they use in a rule to come up with shenanigans. Basically, GW is [big bad swear word]ed no matter what they write. Case in point. And I disagree with your assessment. The paragraph is not talking about models..it is talking about UNITS. Just because it then describes models within that unit does not disregard the fact that it is about UNITS. Units have rules that must be followed. You don't get to ignore that just because they mention models....which, by the way, make up UNITS.

Okay, while the rule does state the each model may be redeployed, it is all under the context of "unit". Why is that being ignored and disregarded? Since it very clearly talks about the unit redeploying, then the rules for a unit would still apply. The wording of "model" seems to be used so that the formation can be rearranged however you want. Basically its a way for them to say you don't have to keep the same shape of the unit when it redeploys. Also, the sentence where it mentions model, the main intent is to give a distance based on unit type. Then it lists the exceptions that this redeployment allows...ie outside of your deployment zone. Just because it mentions the word "model" in a sentence that is describing distance, does not mean you get to ignore the fact that the whole paragraph is talking about units.