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.

So what does "towards" mean in the pile-in rule?

If a model ends its pile-in move closer to the closest enemy model, has it moved "towards" them? A much stricter interpretation of the pile-in move requires models to also move in a straight line, but I can't see any support for that in the rules.

This question is motivated by another (excellent) thread in the General Discussion section that got sidetracked by the meaning of "toward".

I personally think as long as you get closer to the closest enemy without breaking the rules (moving over friendly models) then you are moving towards the closest enemy model.

I too cannot see any support in the rules for the strict interpretation.

There's no support for either interpretation in the official rules. It's something you'll have to talk to your opponent about or roll-off on, should no agreement be found.

Rihgu wrote:
There's no support for either interpretation in the official rules. It's something you'll have to talk to your opponent about or roll-off on, should no agreement be found.

Well not really.

It says move closer as long as you dont do X things. It is pretty within the rules to simply move around friendly models to head towards the enemy.

The interpretation (strict single line) adds extra words to the rule, while the actual rule is pretty clear.

We've been using the idea that you head towards the nearest enemy and trying to get in melee range. If a model can't do that with the closest, keep moving to the next one. As long as you are trying to engage the most enemy models you can, it seems to work and you don't really think about it.

 mikhaila wrote:
We've been using the idea that you head towards the nearest enemy and trying to get in melee range. If a model can't do that with the closest, keep moving to the next one. As long as you are trying to engage the most enemy models you can, it seems to work and you don't really think about it.

Yeah, that's what we've been doing too, but close reading of the rules make me wonder if it's right. The "40k" mosh-pit pile-in basically means we don't really have to care too much about formation, flanks, etc. A stricter reading of the AoS rule makes you think much harder about formation, flanks, etc.

Snapshot, thanks for the nice compliment on my post, and it is indeed a shame that the thread was momentarily derailed. It wasn't actually discussion of the meaning of the word "toward" that derailed things, but we'll put that aside.

The basic thing is this (which I think every reasonable person understands) - it's up to you and the people you play with at the end of the day. So do whatever you and your gaming partners feel like or dice off for it or whatever. I do think, however, "move up to 3" toward the nearest enemy model" is pretty clear. You are allowed to move up to 3" as long as that movement at all times takes you "toward" the closest enemy model. It does not say, "wend your way about in a general way toward the closest enemy model".

To answer your question which got deleted in my thread, could you move in such a way that you ended your movement closer to the nearest enemy model than you started and still be considered moving "toward" the enemy model - my answer to that would be probably not. Let's assume that your movement is in a straight line that is generally in the direction of the nearest enemy model but veers off slightly to the left. All forward movement toward the enemy model is legal, but at the very point at which your movement begins to take you in any direction other than toward the enemy model, you would be in violation. You couldn't veer off that direct line and still claim that you are moving "toward" the closest enemy model even though you end your movement closer to the enemy than when you started. You would, in fact, be moving away from the model at a certain point by doing that, even if only briefly.

I'm trying to articulate this as clearly as I can - if a movement at any point would take you farther from rather than nearer to an enemy model, it would be illegal at that point as it violates the "toward" mandate. Where you intend to go or where you end up as your final destination is irrelevant. If you violate the "toward" mandate at some point during the move, it is illegal. Final intent and final destination are irrelevant.

I can see this getting a bit iffy at times, certainly. But I do think that movements that clearly are not "toward" an enemy, such as taking a huge detour around a friendly model, are clearly illegal, even if your final destination is closer to the enemy.

Is this 100% clear? No. But to me it's pretty close. That could be because I primarily play Epic, and in that game, this "toward the closest enemy model" business has already been thoroughly resolved. There is no question in Epic that my interpretation is the correct one because it's specifically been addressed both in the main rules and in FAQs.

Obviously, I know that Epic is a totally different rule set and it may not apply here, but I do think it can be useful to illustrate that this concept is not without precedent in another GW game. That can help us to figure out intent. Here is the wording from the Epic rule set:

A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. It may move into base contact if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they must head towards the nearest enemy.
Counter charging units are allowed to counter charge enemy units from any enemy formation, not just the one they were assaulted by.

So we have one precedent from another GW rule set supporting the strict "directly toward" interpretation. And I think your comments that a strict interpretation requires far more careful planning with movement, ranking, etc further support the idea that this was the intent. I can tell you that from long experience playing Epic that this rule is a really good one that works in a subtle yet powerful way to reward careful planning and punish poor planning. I personally think that a strict interpretation makes the game richer. (However, I am not basing my interpretation on that personal opinion)

So, 100% ironclad interpretation? No. But I believe it is the most convincingly reasonable one at the moment. But, they are your toy soldiers. Don't let anyone tell you what you can and can't do with them. Come to an agreement with opponents or dice off for it for now, I guess. But this is how I and my group will be playing it. Of course GW could have avoided this hullabaloo by simply adding either the word "directly" or "generally" in there or maybe an additional sentence explaining the intent, but, when has GW ever gotten something right the first time?

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:




Obviously, I know that Epic is a totally different rule set and it may not apply here, but I do think it can be useful to illustrate that this concept is not without precedent in another GW game. That can help us to figure out intent. Here is the wording from the Epic rule set:

A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. It may move into base contact if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they must head towards the nearest enemy.
Counter charging units are allowed to counter charge enemy units from any enemy formation, not just the one they were assaulted by.

The rule in Epic shows that GW knows how to use the term "directly toward." In AoS they just said "towards." Doesn't the fact that they used different wording suggest that they meant something different?

Of course, you could reasonably think that Epic has nothing to do with AoS and that you shouldn't use Epic as a source of interpretation for AoS. But if you're claiming that Epic does provide evidence of how AoS should be interpreted, I don't think it helps you.

I think GW is pretty famous for being inconsistent with their wording...

In any case the word "toward" always implies "directly toward". Otherwise I could move away from you and claim to be moving "toward" you because I plan to circumnavigate the globe to reach you. You can play all kinds of games with the word "toward" if you like.

Even in the rules I quoted, use of the words "allowed to" created enough confusion that it had to be FAQed. Also, AFAIK, "directly" was added in later editions. In earlier editions it was simply "toward".

Play it however you like. They're your models. I think the intent is clear but both interpretations of the rule should work.

Is the idea to get as many models in combat or not? Because moving directly towards the closest enemy model would mean if one enemy model is placed in front of the rest, all of your unit would have to hone in on that one model.

Like so:

o = pile in unit
x = enemy

fig1.

ooooooooo
..................
........x........
xxxxxxxxxx

fig2.

...oooooo...
......ooo......
........x........
xxxxxxxxxx






The wording seems problematic.

True, you are right, and that's something I thought of as well. Agree that the wording seems problematic and should be clarified. Especially in the way you describe, you are right - all of your models are compelled to hone in on the closest enemy model and that's pretty weird.

My guess is that the intent probably was "closest enemy model that does not already have a dance partner", but, it doesn't say that. Also, there is no concept of "engaged" in this game, so how do you define "dance partner"? The literal interpretation means you have to do what you describe but that doesn't feel right.

Also, the stuff I am talking about above regarding interpretation of "toward" I agree should be clarified. I could see situations in which you are moving "toward" (in the sense of "closer to") an enemy model even if it's not "directly toward" him, and I concede that that does get iffy. However, it really only comes into play when you have models stuck behind friendly models - the stuff I wrote in my article about flank charges still works.

Think it just comes down to common sense and house ruling for now. Work it out with your buddies and keep the game moving.

EDIT: You know what? Thinking about what you wrote more, I think it's not as problematic as we think. What you describe would only happen under somewhat unusual circumstances. Remember, in order to complete a charge, you must get one model within 1/2" of an enemy model, and there are no other restrictions on charging. It's pretty unlikely that you would have positioned your unit in such a way that there was only a single enemy model that was "closest" to all of them. It seems like this "funnel" effect would only happen under very rare circumstances.

But even if they did get funelled, is it a huge deal? Whichever of your models get within their weapon range of that enemy model get to attack. Let's say you get four of them within range of that lone enemy model. Four of your models get to attack. Any and all wounds they inflict area dealt to the enemy unit as a whole and not just to the one model. The result is roughly the same - one unit attacks another. In your opponent's turn, his models pile in, then you pile in again in yours and it all ends up being a brawl anyway, even if it takes a few turns of combat.

So maybe it's not as big a deal as we think?

Toward just implies that every step you take moves you closer to your designated target. Nothing inherent in the word "toward" requires you to take the shortest path possible. If I started walking in an ever tightening spiral around you, I'd be constantly moving towards you. It would just take longer than needed and it wouldn't be a direct path, but it would be toward you.

For game purposes, I would just require the models move up to 3" and end their move closer an enemy model than they were before. In other words, if they start out 3" away, they'd need to end 2.9999" away or closer.

If you plan to circumnavigate the globe, you'd be moving away from your destination until such point as you reached the opposite point on the globe. At that point, you would instead start moving towards your destination.

 Kriswall wrote:
Toward just implies that every step you take moves you closer to your designated target. Nothing inherent in the word "toward" requires you to take the shortest path possible. If I started walking in an ever tightening spiral around you, I'd be constantly moving towards you. It would just take longer than needed and it wouldn't be a direct path, but it would be toward you.

Ok, I think it could be argued that the word "toward" always implies "directly toward", but I can see what you're saying. Do we agree that movements that actually do NOT take you "toward" (in the sense of "closer to") the closest enemy model are in violation of the rule? For example, if you need to actually back up in order to sidestep a friendly model, is that in violation of the "toward" mandate? I think it is.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Toward just implies that every step you take moves you closer to your designated target. Nothing inherent in the word "toward" requires you to take the shortest path possible. If I started walking in an ever tightening spiral around you, I'd be constantly moving towards you. It would just take longer than needed and it wouldn't be a direct path, but it would be toward you.

Ok, I can see this scenario. Do we agree that movements that actually do NOT take you "toward" the closest enemy model are in violation of the rule? For example, if you need to actually back up in order to sidestep a friendly model, is that in violation of the "toward" mandate? I think it is.

From a super nitpicky standpoint? Sure. How I would play it... if you end your move closer to the target than you started, you've moved towards it.

I'm honestly not trying to be nitpicky - this has big implications for how the game plays. Does it play like 40k? Or does it play like Fantasy? Honestly not trying to be pedantic or nitpicky. As I said, I know from experience in another game that this has big ramifications.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
True, you are right, and that's something I thought of as well. Agree that the wording seems problematic and should be clarified. Especially in the way you describe, you are right - all of your models are compelled to hone in on the closest enemy model and that's pretty weird.

This. One of the things that always bugged me about WFB was the fact that the crazy wlid Orcs would very politely and patiently keep their ranks and wait for the guys in front of them or on the flanks, to be slaughtered by the big bad enemy hero instead of piling pell mell into the fight.

Interpreting as rigidly are you're suggesting just doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the AoS rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
I think GW is pretty famous for being inconsistent with their wording...

I don't disagree. But that proves the point that consulting Epic to deterrmine what they mean in AoS is not very reliable.

Bede19025 wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
True, you are right, and that's something I thought of as well. Agree that the wording seems problematic and should be clarified. Especially in the way you describe, you are right - all of your models are compelled to hone in on the closest enemy model and that's pretty weird.

This. One of the things that always bugged me about WFB was the fact that the crazy wlid Orcs would very politely and patiently keep their ranks and wait for the guys in front of them or on the flanks, to be slaughtered by the big bad enemy hero instead of piling pell mell into the fight.

Interpreting as rigidly are you're suggesting just doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the AoS rules.

Hrrmmmm. Ok, that's a valid point. When viewed in the broader context of what appears to be a pretty "loose" rule set, you could be right about rigid interpretation being inappropriate.

Grrr. A little frustrating to not have clarity on this.

Ok - well, I will say this much - I'm glad that my blog post seems to have at least pointed us in the direction of the questions we should be asking and what you should be coming to an agreement on with your opponent BEFORE the game starts. But I think we're back where we started - play it how you and your friends want to play it for now.

I had a related issue last night. A unit of Chaos Warriors was trying to pile in around the new giant Khorne beast. After a round of this I had some Chaos Warriors that were actually closer to another unit not involved in that battle. Do they have to pile in to that unit or do they have to remain within 1" of a member of their unit? Which rule takes precedence?

 Todosi wrote:
I had a related issue last night. A unit of Chaos Warriors was trying to pile in around the new giant Khorne beast. After a round of this I had some Chaos Warriors that were actually closer to another unit not involved in that battle. Do they have to pile in to that unit or do they have to remain within 1" of a member of their unit? Which rule takes precedence?

Good question and interesting scenario. My guess is that they would be stuck where they were. This is how it would work in Epic, in any case. If you elect to take your pile in move, it must be toward the closest enemy model. That is inviolable. The requirement to also maintain 1" unit coherency is also inviolable. Any movement that would cause you to violate either one would be illegal. Hence, you're stuck where you are.

So this is actually one of those things I was alluding to that can reward or punish thoughtful movement. What my friends and I will often do in Epic is position one of our units close to an enemy unit that we intend to assault with another of our units. So then when we assault with our other unit, the enemy unit we are assaulting is compelled to "counter charge" or "pile in" toward the unit we deviously placed earlier and cannot fight against our unit that is actually assaulting them. Does that make sense? Effectively this creates totally asymmetric assaults.

 Todosi wrote:
I had a related issue last night. A unit of Chaos Warriors was trying to pile in around the new giant Khorne beast. After a round of this I had some Chaos Warriors that were actually closer to another unit not involved in that battle. Do they have to pile in to that unit or do they have to remain within 1" of a member of their unit? Which rule takes precedence?

As XM said, you can't pile in and break coherency in the process. I think this makes the closest model in your case an illegal pile-in target. I would be OK with you piling-in to the nearest model that didn't break coherency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
I'm honestly not trying to be nitpicky - this has big implications for how the game plays. Does it play like 40k? Or does it play like Fantasy? Honestly not trying to be pedantic or nitpicky. As I said, I know from experience in another game that this has big ramifications.

I agree. I think they were deliberate writing the rule this way so that it is NOT the same as the 40k mosh-pit. This rule gives very strong advantage to a unit attacking the flank of a target because the attacker (in ranks) will be able to pile-in more models than the target for the first round or 2. The target may need to seriously consider retreat to get into better shape to counter.

I would NOT be ok with him piling in to the nearest model that didn't break coherency - it could very well be that I carefully placed the "closest model" in that way specifically because I did not want him piling in toward another unit and lending those attacks to that combat. It could be that I set my models up by design to create an advantage for myself in a subsequent combat. Both rules are rules. You can neither pile in toward an enemy model that isn't closest nor can you break 1" coherency. If what you want to do violates either or both of these rules, you can't do it.

(Not at all trying to be snarky or disrespectful here, just trying to clearly state my thoughts - I wish tone were conveyed over the internet)

I do agree with you regarding intent. I think other posters here have raised legitimate points which I am willing to concede, but as it stands now, I'm 80% for the "directly toward" interpretation and about 20% for the "mosh-pit" interpretation.

The more I think about this the more it seems like this is THE most important rule in the game.

I'm going to play a game with a strict "directly towards" approach and see if it makes for:
- cleaner combats
- more tactical melees
- more enjoyable game

Or not.

I am also leaning towards saying you cannot pile in out of coherency.

Hello! This is my first post

I believe you can break coherency. Nothing in the rules says you can't. Therefore, if you wish to pile in, they must pile in towards the closest enemy models (this can be used to the advantage of both players, depending on the player and what they want) which may or may not break 'coherency'. This could be used as a means of "pealing off enemy models from a unit, or to engaging an enemy unit who is avoiding combat).

However, if the unit MOVES in the movement phase, they must finish their movement within 1" of each other.

 WillyGames wrote:
Hello! This is my first post

I believe you can break coherency. Nothing in the rules says you can't. Therefore, if you wish to pile in, they must pile in towards the closest enemy models (this can be used to the advantage of both players, depending on the player and what they want) which may or may not break 'coherency'. This could be used as a means of "pealing off enemy models from a unit, or to engaging an enemy unit who is avoiding combat).

However, if the unit MOVES in the movement phase, they must finish their movement within 1" of each other.

First, welcome to the forums!

It does say that a unit must finish any sort of move within 1" of others in the unit, though.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as
a single group of models, with all models within 1" of at least one other model from their unit. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must reform the next time that it moves."

Does a pile in count as a move though... I'm not so sure. Especially in the context of this rule talking about setting up and moving. In addition the "If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must reform the next time that it moves" makes me suspicious they added this to counter pile-ins to multi targets.


Edit: On further thought, I think you are right. Keeping pile-in moves to the same 1" in simple and neat. Which seems to be the general philosophy for these rules. The "split-up" part is probably referring to the removal of models which may split a unit depending on positioning.

Since you can't willingly move out of coherency, and this should include pile in moves, the only scenario I can think of where you could willingly break coherency is by taking casualties from the center of your unit. This could potentially break the line.

Yep, I think the only way to be out of cohenrency is due to casualties. Pile-ins are still a move.

 Bottle wrote:
Yep, I think the only way to be out of cohenrency is due to casualties. Pile-ins are still a move.

Agreed.

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.

Attilla wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yep, I think the only way to be out of cohenrency is due to casualties. Pile-ins are still a move.

Agreed.

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".

I don't have a problem if model A has to move around friendly model B to get to an enemy model. Combatatents would absolutely 100% do this in reality. Not stop because someone was in their way of moving in a straight line.

 mikhaila wrote:

Attilla wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yep, I think the only way to be out of cohenrency is due to casualties. Pile-ins are still a move.

Agreed.

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".

I don't have a problem if model A has to move around friendly model B to get to an enemy model. Combatatents would absolutely 100% do this in reality. Not stop because someone was in their way of moving in a straight line.

Just to be clear here though, we're not talking about moving around friendlies in an effort to get to a models that are NOT the nearest enemy model, right? IWO, this isn't the 40k mosh-pit engage-as-many-models-as-we-can form of pile-in. In AOS we pile-in towards (ie, closer) to just the nearest enemy, and if that conveniently gets us in a position that also lets some of my chums pile-in to attack range, then all the better.