PDA

View Full Version : Piling In



Kingtomb
09-07-2015, 22:03
In the rules it states:

"When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model."

What does this mean exactly?

Do I have to move directly toward the closest model?
Can I move around intervening models?
Can I move however I want as long as I am closer to the closest model than when I started?
Can I move a model if it is already as close as possible to the closest model?

I have noticed that most bat reps I have watched seem to very loosely interpret this rule as "just move 3 inches" and I was just curious on the thoughts of the community.

Thank you for your replies.

roperpg
09-07-2015, 23:01
1)No.
2)Yes as long as they're yours (as you can't have an intervening enemy model that isn't the closest!)
3)'Towards' would suggest yes, but you couldn't move further away at any point during the move, so you'd have to 'spiral in'.
4)'Towards' would suggest no, as you can't finish up closer than 'already touching'.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

kaulem
17-07-2015, 16:55
I disagree with roprpg's assessment of 1&2

I would say:
1) yes
2) no

Since it does not mention that you can circle around and the you must move towards the model.

But it's very vague either way

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Avian
17-07-2015, 16:58
Presumably what you do is you measure the distance to the closest enemy model, and if the distance to that model is shorter (even if just marginally) after your move than before it, you're fine.

Greyfire
17-07-2015, 17:21
Would be helpful if that rule was "closest unengaged model". Again, a 40K implementation but it seems like if a unit runs in an I-formation you can control how an enemy engages you since there is no lap-round rule. If there is, please someone point it out. Then again, maybe that's a valid strategy to control how an enemy unit can engage you so you can flank with other friendly units.

MasterSplinter
17-07-2015, 18:54
I support kaulems interpretation, because...


Would be helpful if that rule was "closest unengaged model". Again, a 40K implementation but it seems like if a unit runs in an I-formation you can control how an enemy engages you since there is no lap-round rule. If there is, please someone point it out. Then again, maybe that's a valid strategy to control how an enemy unit can engage you so you can flank with other friendly units.

...indeed this is true, but imo this way you get at least some tactical engagement out of "formations" in this ruleset. It is however noted, that, while doing a charge move, nothing prohibits you from moving around enemy models and encircle them, when you keep only moving the distance you are allowed to via the charge roll. So the tactic with formations only works if the opponent rolls just about the same distance as your unit is away from them. Otherwise you could reylly restrict the count of models which can attack in the cc phase. Or you just charge them in Wedge/I/Konga Formation - then it should work always^^

Greyfire
17-07-2015, 19:00
Or you just charge them in Wedge/I/Konga Formation - then it should work always^^
One thing I kind of like is that there may be some strategy to the formations that you run your troops around prior to combat. Something the help maximize both the charge and pile in moves. Right now I'm thinking that's something unappreciated since it's new and different. Time (and battle reports) will show us more.

MasterSplinter
17-07-2015, 19:08
Im looking quite forward to that, too. Even if the system looks pretty dull at the first glance, especially considering movement and unit formations/deployment there is some room for tactics. For example it is well possible to have one unit (for example a WoC warshrine) right in the middle of another unit to protect it (or have your shooters guarded by a circle of closecombat troops). I also like the possibilties of support units give each others by the 3" attack rule, and that you effectivly can block movement of enemy troops with it (imo its more possible than in 8th, since when was the last time youve used real redirectors).

As Kisanis said in another thread, its a real big change of paradigms of thinking (i liked that expression). Maybe we are just not used to it, yet.

Manicelf
22-07-2015, 11:58
As a very inexperienced player I find the pile in very vague and confusing. As written it allows moving towards the closest enemy and that's it. At least that's how I read it. I would say that the rule should be discussed with an opponent before starting the game or fisticuffs could be the result of very different ideas of what "towards the closest enemy" means. What is an acceptable formation anyway? Do units have to be in blocks or can they be in any shape? If you are attacking an enemy which is arranged in an arrow head formation then it could be difficult getting models into weapon range. Also after the attacking player has their attacks, does the 2nd player get to pile in too? Some clearer rules how be good.

Bede19025
22-07-2015, 13:41
. What is an acceptable formation anyway? Do units have to be in blocks or can they be in any shape? If you are attacking an enemy which is arranged in an arrow head formation then it could be difficult getting models into weapon range. Also after the attacking player has their attacks, does the 2nd player get to pile in too? Some clearer rules how be good.

These are clearly answered in the rules.

There are no required formations. Each model in a unit must be within 1" of another model in the unit. Within that restriction arrange them any way you like.

In the combat phase the player chooses one of his units to attack. He piles in with that unit and then conducts the attacks. The opposing player then chooses one if his units to attack. It doesn't have to be the unit that was just attacked. He then piles in with that unit and conducts its attacks. Repeat this until all units (of both sides) with enemy in attack range have fought.

Manicelf
22-07-2015, 15:06
I think "clearly" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it's the change from the detail given in the previous rulebooks to the "it must be ok because it doesn't say you can't" style of the new 4 pages that is throwing me.

theunwantedbeing
22-07-2015, 16:40
I think "clearly" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe it's the change from the detail given in the previous rulebooks to the "it must be ok because it doesn't say you can't" style of the new 4 pages that is throwing me.

Yeah it's a difficult and complex two step process of piling in and then making attacks.

3eland
22-07-2015, 17:11
Technically no one here can answer your question as no one besides GW knows what GW wanted with their rules. Without more information for the rules we have to go by what we think they meant. This means talking to your opponent ahead of time.

Our group plays it as the model must move towards the closest enemy model, it may move around friendly models to reach said closest enemy model.

Manicelf
22-07-2015, 18:11
Yeah it's a difficult and complex two step process of piling in and then making attacks.
You're obviously a nice person aren't you with an arrogant, sarcastic comment like that. Bet you're really welcoming to new, inexperienced players where you are.

theunwantedbeing
22-07-2015, 20:56
Our group plays it as the model must move towards the closest enemy model, it may move around friendly models to reach said closest enemy model.

By move around do you mean you can be moving away from the enemy as part of the 3" move. eg.

E
EXX
EXA
EXX

A has nowhere to go that brings them closer unless they move around as follows

E
EXXA
EX
EXX

EA
EXX
EX
EXX

So A ends out closer but hasn't necessarily moved towards the enemy the entire time (assume that the E in base contact at the end is magically the closest)

amysrevenge
22-07-2015, 21:40
I feel like requiring "directly toward" both demands more thought on initial formations and charge movements, and more planning during Pile In moves. It also gives a disadvantage to large mobs relative to smaller units, since it is much more difficult to get back ranks into the fight.

A loosey-goosey "meh, just get in there" movement makes no real demands for precision/planning, and gives an advantage to large mobs who can run around and through their mates to easily get into the fighting.

Greyfire
22-07-2015, 22:07
I feel like requiring "directly toward" both demands more thought on initial formations and charge movements, and more planning during Pile In moves. It also gives a disadvantage to large mobs relative to smaller units, since it is much more difficult to get back ranks into the fight.
That's what I have been thinking, too. In the example above I don't think A can move since it's already as close as it can get to an enemy model. But if the charge had spread that unit out a bit then the pile in move would have produce the desired combat. I can see formations shaped like a C being created to wrap around an enemy unit. Hopefully we'll see several charge strategies developed that enhance the game. Just running a blob of models into another isn't very satisfying.

3eland
22-07-2015, 22:54
By move around do you mean you can be moving away from the enemy as part of the 3" move. eg.

E
EXX
EXA
EXX

A has nowhere to go that brings them closer unless they move around as follows

E
EXXA
EX
EXX

EA
EXX
EX
EXX

So A ends out closer but hasn't necessarily moved towards the enemy the entire time (assume that the E in base contact at the end is magically the closest)

No we would play it like this:

Original:

E
EXX
EXA
EXX

moving to the closest enemy model:

EX
EX
EXA
EX
X

If model A has a long enough reach then he wouldn't have to move. However if model A cannot reach an E because of reach and there is no way of squeezing him in between by nudging models over (without actually leaving their or their opponents weapon range (remember 1" is a long range on small models)) then he has to stand there and wait for a buddy to die (or pick him off when/if a model of yours dies).

It is either that or this:


EX
EX
EX
EX
XA

But again, it is up to how your group decides.