Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What's interesting is what happens when a large blob is hit on opposite sides, and you pull losses from the center?
You can remove models to take you out of coherency, and now you're left with a must move to close the gap, and must move (pile in) toward the nearest enemy.


What's an interesting way to play is that you can break coherency with a pile in, but if out of coherency at the start of your turn, you MUST move to regain. If your still in combat, you must RETREAT.

It's loosely based on the rules, and makes for a much more tactical combat phase. Hitting a large unit on two sides (ie, flanking) is a big advantage, as it's risky to pile in both ways to fully engage, one of your units wont be getting hit as hard.

I would argue that if I move towards the nearest enemy and someone is in my way that requires I move around, the nearest enemy might change mid move. Then I'd continue the move towards that other enemy.

Realistically, I think most people will just play this the way 40k is played. Move towards the baddies and pile in as many as you can.

Just saying there is no requirement to regain coherency, provided you don't move. Once you make any move though (move, retreat, pile-in), you're obliged to regain coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I would argue that if I move towards the nearest enemy and someone is in my way that requires I move around, the nearest enemy might change mid move. Then I'd continue the move towards that other enemy.

Realistically, I think most people will just play this the way 40k is played. Move towards the baddies and pile in as many as you can.

I reckon you're right Kriswall, but that would be a shame. It denies players the opportunity to develop (and take advantage of) their positioning skills.

Snapshot wrote:
Just saying there is no requirement to regain coherency, provided you don't move. Once you make any move though (move, retreat, pile-in), you're obliged to regain coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I would argue that if I move towards the nearest enemy and someone is in my way that requires I move around, the nearest enemy might change mid move. Then I'd continue the move towards that other enemy.

Realistically, I think most people will just play this the way 40k is played. Move towards the baddies and pile in as many as you can.

I reckon you're right Kriswall, but that would be a shame. It denies players the opportunity to develop (and take advantage of) their positioning skills.

I actually see "positiong skills" as something that would be abused and take away from the game if we played strict RAW. People would do some of the silly things from past editions of WFB like putting units in long single columns. Stop a charge and limit how many of the enemy can fight since they somehow are only focused on the one guy in the front and can't move around their buddies. I remember when people ran the slayer hero and wraith 'darts'.

As i interpret it you cant pile in if it would break coherence, so no spreading to far, no pushing the models of one unit between the models of another to pile in (seen both in several battle reports).
As far as straight lines to the closest model and moving around stuff in your way, Id say it was fair that your intended to move each turn to get models into base contact, that means potentialy moving further away from a model to get into base contact.

Looking at other rules from GW like the wording of falling back in 40k, which is pretty similar, you have to move to your board edge, you get to move around models and terrain to complete this.

Xenocidal Maniac wrote:You can play all kinds of games with the word "toward" if you like.

Yessss, the Semantics Phase thunders on, easily the most asinine part of the Warhammer series

mikhaila wrote:

Attilla wrote:
On another note, a very popular game defines the difference between "towards" and "directly towards" with toward being a move that just needs to end closer than it began. And directly towards need to be closer in every step of the way.

An important distinction. I don't see that the wording in Epic applies to AOS whatsoever. Different game, different writers, different GW in every respect. And the difference of the word "directly".

Pretty sure the implied game was WM/H? If Epic distinguishes different severity of 'towardses', bravo on it as well.

Snapshot wrote:IWO, this isn't the 40k mosh-pit engage-as-many-models-as-we-can form of pile-in.

It isn't? It seems to be thus far, with the added ability to 'pull' an enemy unit off of one of your units using another unit and leveraging mandatory pile-in moves.

FWIW, I've been playing that the 3" move must be taken directly towards the closest enemy model. Long, strung out coherency and all. Seemed quite RAI, as the RAW is unhelpful.

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:

Xenocidal Maniac wrote: It seems to be thus far, with the added ability to 'pull' an enemy unit off of one of your units using another unit and leveraging mandatory pile-in moves.

FWIW, I've been playing that the 3" move must be taken directly towards the closest enemy model. Long, strung out coherency and all. Seemed quite RAI, as the RAW is unhelpful.

- Salvage

Pile-in isn't mandatory. At least my reading says it isn't. "Step 1: ....you may move each model...." Another difference to 40k.

Oh. I really thought it was mandatory - looks like if you pile in, then you must move up to 3" towards an enemy (whatever 'towards' means ), but you could just not move at all. So apparently you could just freeze a combat by not moving your dudes up to meet chargers. Clearly the chargers would pile in in their turn, but without the success that 3" from both sides would have.

- Salvage

Hello! I didn't have time to check in on the discussion yesterday. Looks like it's moving along nicely.

First, I want to say that I am STOKED that my little article sparked this much discussion. I've had literally thousands of hits to it over the past couple days. Totally not saying that to brag, but sharing because 1) it makes me happy that people found it interesting and 2) because I think it means that we have stumbled on, as Bottle says, THE most important rule in the game. I agree. The interpretation of this one rule radically changes the way it plays depending on which one you choose.

Boss, yes, a similar discussion came up in the Epic league that I organize regarding the pile in move (known as "counter charge" in Epic). The basic idea is that you are not required to pile in, but if you do elect to pile in, it must be "toward" the closest enemy model (whatever that means), and it may be UP TO 3".

You guys here have caused me to soften my original stance on the "directly toward" interpretation. See? Sometimes people don't defend their position to the death on the internet!! Yes, I do still think that the "directly toward" interpretation was the intent, but I am seeing more and more scenarios where the "ending closer than you started" interpretation could also make sense. The game just plays two different ways, depending.

I think Bottle's idea of playing a few games under one or both interpretations is great. Which one makes for the most enjoyable game? Which one "makes sense"? That's the one to go with until we hear otherwise (and maybe even once we do!)

As we continue with the discussion, however, let's also not forget that if one of your units takes a bad charge, it now has the freedom to retreat and reform! This tactic is far more effective and useful if you are playing under the "directly toward" paradigm. Maybe you positioned your unit poorly in such a way that you are severely limited in how many of your own models you can bring into the combat - ok, no big deal. Eat a bad round of combat, retreat in your next movement phase, reform to a better formation and wait for the follow up charge.

EDIT: Oops, wanted to add - for me, I'm primarily discussing the issue of being able to sidestep friendly models in order to get to the closest enemy model. I definitely don't think the intent of this rule is to create the 40k style mosh pit of get as many dudes in as you can. My guess is that if strict "directly toward" is not the intent, then I think at the very least that the definition of "closest enemy model" should not be changed mid-move. "Closest enemy model" should be defined as the one that is closest at the time that you begin your pile in move. I think!

I agree. The closest enemy model is determined prior to the execution of the pile-in move, so re-evaluating this mid-move would break the rule I think.

After completing the pile-in, there is of course nothing to stop you attacking ANY unit that is range.

If you decide to pile-in next turn, you may well be piling-in to a different target model.

Snapshot wrote:
I agree. The closest enemy model is determined prior to the execution of the pile-in move, so re-evaluating this mid-move would break the rule I think.

After completing the pile-in, there is of course nothing to stop you attacking ANY unit that is range.

If you decide to pile-in next turn, you may well be piling-in to a different target model.

Yup. Unless said model is still in contact with same model (or another model) in which case you can't move them because they are already toward their closest enemy model.

I have seen several games where new players attempt to move models who are already in contact with models, upto 3" in order to pile in models from behind. While both players seems to agree on this gameplay, this actually removes some of the tactical depth to the game and makes your movement, charge roll, and other movement bonuses less important.

To me, the pile-in move isn't an option if you're already in base contact because (and I'm completely aware that bases are not defined in the rules) you cannot move closer to a model you're in base contact with, so you cannot move 'toward' it.

I'm inclined to agree Roper. If you're not reducing the distance, you're not moving towards. I'm seeing too many games that are effectively using the 40k pile-in moves.

A lot of people are critical of AoS atm because a lot of game degenerate into a mosh pit in the middle of the, and misplaying pile-ins is a big reason for this.

+ Pile-ins are optional.
+ The rules don't give permission to get as many in base contact as possible (ala 40k)
+ You can't break the coherency rule when you pile-in
+ Facing matters because any turns count as movement, reducing the distance you can pile-in
+ There's no such thing as locked-in-combat; retreat is allowed

Snapshot wrote:



+ Facing matters because any turns count as movement, reducing the distance you can pile-in

Turns count as movment, but there's no reason to make a turn since models have no facing and can attack and move on any direction.

So, practically speaking turns don't cost movement.

Snapshot wrote:
I'm inclined to agree Roper. If you're not reducing the distance, you're not moving towards. I'm seeing too many games that are effectively using the 40k pile-in moves.

A lot of people are critical of AoS atm because a lot of game degenerate into a mosh pit in the middle of the, and misplaying pile-ins is a big reason for this.

+ Pile-ins are optional.
+ The rules don't give permission to get as many in base contact as possible (ala 40k)
+ You can't break the coherency rule when you pile-in
+ Facing matters because any turns count as movement, reducing the distance you can pile-in
+ There's no such thing as locked-in-combat; retreat is allowed

Couldn't agree more. As I said above, using 40k style pile ins such as the congo line trick, takes away depth to the game. Also, and I know I'm going to get hate for this, but using model bases instead of models does the same thing. The direction you face your model after move/charge/pile in matters in this game....a lot.

p.s Turning movement would only be a thing on large wide models.

Wow, I didn't even know that moving models that are already "base to base" with a model was even up for discussion. Clearly that isn't allowed by the rules as the model is already as close to its closest enemy model as it can be. Yeah, people playing it that way are playing it wrong. The pile in rule does not allow that.

Bede19025 wrote:

Snapshot wrote:



+ Facing matters because any turns count as movement, reducing the distance you can pile-in

Turns count as movment, but there's no reason to make a turn since models have no facing and can attack and move on any direction.

So, practically speaking turns don't cost movement.

I disagree, as there are plenty of models that have bits sticking out that DO make a difference. Say a spearman's weapon sticks out 1/2". With a 2" weapon range, and a 3" pile-in, his threat range (relative to his base) is 5 1/2" if he is facing towards the enemy.

If he's facing the other way, he has 2 options:

a) Reverse pile-in. He moves (backwards) his full 3" pile-in allowance, and can attack targets within 2", giving him a threat range of 5".
b) Turn-around and pile-in. Since his spear sticks out 1/2" (and assuming he's on a 1" base), turning uses 2" of his movement. He piles-in a further 1". From where he started, his threat range is 3 1/2".

Some people are talking about lack of tactical nuance in AoS, but this is no surprise if you're not actually playing the AoS rules.

Snapshot wrote:


Some people are talking about lack of tactical nuance in AoS, but this is no surprise if you're not actually playing the AoS rules.

With 18 years of WHFB experience, it is my opinion there is more tactical depth in AoS than the past, just with less 'rules' needed. The more I play at my FLGS, and the better we get, the more challenging this game becomes. In contrast, once you mastered the 150 pages of rules with WHFB, there was not a lot of surprises left.....you knew exactly what your opponent was setting up his units for.

 WillyGames wrote:

Snapshot wrote:


Some people are talking about lack of tactical nuance in AoS, but this is no surprise if you're not actually playing the AoS rules.

With 18 years of WHFB experience, it is my opinion there is more tactical depth in AoS than the past, just with less 'rules' needed. The more I play at my FLGS, and the better we get, the more challenging this game becomes. In contrast, once you mastered the 150 pages of rules with WHFB, there was not a lot of surprises left.....you knew exactly what your opponent was setting up his units for.

YES. People are not understanding that you don't need a billion pages of garbage rules to make a game deep. Convoluted does not equal deep; it equals convoluted. A brilliant system strips rules down as far as it can to the very essence. The more fat there is surrounding the essence, the more confusing and cumbersome the game is. I'm not calling AoS brilliant necessarily (too early to tell), but it's far deeper than people give it credit for. It's my opinion that it's far better than 8th (which I held in such low esteem I could only stomach about three games of before I shelved my models in sheer apathy)

I would like some clarity on this pile-in issue, however.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

I would like some clarity on this pile-in issue, however.

I think you might be waiting a while!!
From this and other threads, I don't think too much clarification or interpretation is required - I've certainly found that even some apparently very complicated situations are actually very simple to resolve if you follow the rules to the letter - so my little group have been running movement & combat like this;

"Any unit that has charged or has models within 3" of an enemy unit can attack with its melee weapons in the combat phase."
First off, you cannot move within 3" of an enemy unit during the movement phase, so by definition you cannot be within 3" in the combat phase. The only way to break the 3" bubble is by charging or piling in; I've seen plenty of interpretations based on measurements etc., but the rules explicitly forbid in one situation then require it in another so you can't meet both unless something else has happened.
It's also important to note that eligibility to attack is triggered by units, not models.

"When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model."
This is where things can get a bit odd;
First, you do not have to move the model at all - "may move"
Second, it says "towards" - but there is no qualifier other than 3". So as long as you don't move more than 3" and finish closer than you started, this is semantically okay. No specific need to move in a straight line, or the shortest route, or whatever. What we have found though is that the idea of 'spiralling in' is effectively irrelevant because you're dealing with such short distance we haven't been able to 'break' anything with it yet.

But it does specify closest enemy model, and this can be from any unit - which is where your opponent can start to drag your units out of shape, especially when you are using a large unit.

What is important to note though - and whilst I can't think of a way to 'use' this, there maybe one to find - step 2 specifies each model in the unit makes attacks, so it's not optional - whether you are in weapon range or not, every model in the unit still 'attacks'.

RoperPG, you're preaching to the converted here.

All I can suggest to folks who see no tactical nuance is AoS is to take another careful look at the rules, especially around movement and pile-ins. I'm finding when I move stuff I'm looking ahead to the pile-in phase to give me some advantages - this includes executing some "traditional" flank and rear attacks. AoS might not give straight up bonuses to these types of attacks, but intelligent play definitely lets you use the rules to tip the balance in your favour.

I had to figure out the movement rules pretty quickly - playing with 40mm bases you tend to get scuppered with traffic jams very easily if you don't manage your pile-ins properly...

Snapshot wrote:


Some people are talking about lack of tactical nuance in AoS, but this is no surprise if you're not actually playing the AoS rules

If this is the tactical nuance of AoS then it's more fiddly than that of WFB. I for one can't be bothered with worrying about the exact reach of the spear , etc of each model, which all vary to some extent.

BTW, i like AoS .

RoperPG wrote:
I had to figure out the movement rules pretty quickly - playing with 40mm bases you tend to get scuppered with traffic jams very easily if you don't manage your pile-ins properly...

Roper, thanks. We pretty much spent the past two pages of this thread going over all that, but the summary is nice and your input is certainly welcome.

As far as the above, the rules also do not state that you're not allowed to "step" on friendly (or enemy, for that matter) bases. I think it's legal to simply overlap bases if you want, if your 40mm bases are getting in the way.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
I had to figure out the movement rules pretty quickly - playing with 40mm bases you tend to get scuppered with traffic jams very easily if you don't manage your pile-ins properly...

Roper, thanks. We pretty much spent the past two pages of this thread going over all that, but the summary is nice and your input is certainly welcome.

As far as the above, the rules also do not state that you're not allowed to "step" on friendly (or enemy, for that matter) bases. I think it's legal to simply overlap bases if you want, if your 40mm bases are getting in the way.

Stepping on bases is a complete no-go. It's highly disrespectful to your enemy as you are prone to damage the enemy unit's basing.

Sure. That's a consideration. I wasn't suggesting anyone be rude about it. But, at least with your own models, I think it can be ok to do from time to time, especially if they are on the old square bases and have lots of dead space that prevent you from moving in ways that you otherwise would be able to.

My point is - "bases" don't seem to mean anything in this game. I think we are all conditioned to have a great deal of respect for bases as some kind of impenetrable barrier, but that seems to have changed in AoS.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:


My point is - "bases" don't seem to mean anything in this game. I think we are all conditioned to have a great deal of respect for bases as some kind of impenetrable barrier, but that seems to have changed in AoS.

It's a stupid all-around idea. Downright stupid. Not only do you open the game up for MFA to infinity, you also make stuff like measuring a lot harder than before. The best way to handle it is to still measure base-to-base.

Sigvatr, this thread is for discussion of what the rules actually are, not what you wish they were or think they ought to be. Furthermore, describing another forum member's contributions to the thread as "stupid" and "downright stupid" is in violation of the first forum rule - be polite.

I've gone ahead and reported your violation. I will report all future violations as well. If you would like to contribute to this thread keeping in mind rule #1 - be polite, and rule #2 - stay on topic, you are more than welcome to do so.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
rule #2 - stay on topic

This is a good idea.

We immediately went back to measuring from the base after one game. It slow the game, and brings up all kinds of odd questions.

This is a typical GW move. Tell people bases don't matter so that they don't get flack about people having to rebase their armies.