Abusing the Rules: Rubberbanding, this can't be right

[Kovnik Obama]

Well the main problem there is seeing this as an abuse, and not just your own ignorance. Which this is all this is :

The formation rules are clear : it doesn't say anything about the abilities listed on the officer's card. And rules include conditions of formation when they need to.

The morale rules are clear : you know when you can and when you can't activate an out-of-formation model

The movement rules are clear : you can do a full advance of 0". When you can't, or when you can't benefit from a special rule because of a 0" movement, it's included in the rule, or FAQed (like the 0" trample).

So the only reason why rubberbanding comes as a surprise, is because you haven't equated all those facts with each other. Saying this is frustrating, and that p.5 comes as an excuse to everyone who actually can figure out those interactions, well, that's just against the spirit of a competitive game. Which is, in essence, what all war-games are.

And honestly, these tricks are about all that remains from formation rules from MkI, which I loved and hoped they would have expanded upon. So I really don't see a problem. Bring snipers, or solo hunters. That's what there are there for.

[wittdooley]

You don't think that violates the spirit of what a "unit" is though? By choosing to stay out of formation and make no attempt to go back, why is that model still considered to benefit it has no Interest in being a part of.

In my opinion it's incredibly cheesy and, like Chris said, seems to violate any "spirit" that would ever exist in regards to unit cohesion.

[Kovnik Obama]

Depends on the ability itself, in my opinion. If it's getting a boost to movement and DEF, like for the Winter Guard, then, 'fluffily' it's the training they've received from the UA, or it's specialty, that is represented by the ability. All the warriors don't necessarily lose that training since they can't see the officer. It's a fluffy explanation, but it's all I need.

Plus you do trade the ability to use 2 model's combat action, and risk losing the Officer to sniping fire somewhere you can't field promote anyone.

I am a believer in the spirit of the law as well as the word of the law. Privateer went on to legitimize this by doing nothing. Shame on them.

Except you don't have any way of knowing what you assert. The spirit of WM is taking the rules as presented and bringing on your A game. It's aggressive strategic gameplay. You have ample tools to deal with situations like these.

[Chris Copeland]

I posted what I posted over on the PP board whilst still in the early stages of Nerd Grief. It got me banned for a week. By the next morning I was at Stage 7: Nerd Acceptance. it is what it is...

Now, I still think that the Spirit of the Rules matter. I still think that "rubberbanding" is an abuse of syntax that was missed by the authors. OK. The game goes on. Just because some uber-competetive rules lawyer shakes things up doesn't mean I have to like it. Truth be told: I'll probably respect players less who engage in such shenanigans. However, the longer I play these games the less likely I am to be involved in Steamroller/'Ard Boyz type play. As time goes on I am more and more likely only to play games with my friends (and preferably only using painted armies).

So, you'll get no argument from me that rubberbanding is illegal. I will continue to believe that is is an unforeseen exploit that PP legitimized by not addressing. Cheers! Copeland

[Dru]

I don't have my rulebook with me, but I'm pretty sure that a grunt that starts the activation out of cmd range of the unit leader MUST advance (more than 0") and end it's movement closer to the leader than when he started.

Doe this not mean the unit leader can not move , or the grunt will be futher away , so it will need to move at a minimum of the same speed ? ie unit commander moves forward 5 inches , so the grunt has to move 5.1 inchs towards the leader ?

[NinjaBaggins]

And therein lies one of the major problems I have with WM/Hordes, and why I only play it with my friends over some beers. I don't see any fun in the above statement, particularly when d-bags like that are given the crutch of "Page 5" to fall back on.

I'm completely the same way. The level of douchebaggery that occurs in the Warmachine/Hordes player base has encouraged me to NEVER play in competitive arenas.

As for this rubberbanding, it makes my jaw drop a little that it would be a legal move

[cody]

As others have already alluded to, doing this means the unit can't control objectives in scenarios, so it's not without drawbacks.

[Nidirom]

This makes me wish I played a more buffcentric army.

[Dais]

I read the thread on the PP forums, and as cheesy as it sounds, it isn't something that will come up often. Only a few casters would consider making a single exposed model with no or low health a lynchpin of their tactics. Most factions can bring arc nodes for a more reliable method of applying spells upfield. As a previous poster mentioned, scenario play makes this very unappealing since the one guy in the back prevents your unit from scoring.
I can see this being useful with the vanilla standard bearers that have no rules other than cmd reroll though. "If you forget your weapon you are designated the buff monkey -now stand in the back and think about what you've done" More than to help buffs, this tactic can probably better serve you in denying a model or unit it's prey ability, the full prey unit has to die for a new prey to be selected so running one guy into the back corner makes it very hard for them to keep it in the late game.

[Face Stabbity]

Doesn't page 5 also say not to use page 5 as an excuse to be a jerk? You're supposed to be ruthless, but I don't think there's ever cause to try to exploit every technicality possible just to win at a game that doesn't matter, especially if it's at the expense of your opponent having fun as well.