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.

I have seen someeople say that when you pile in, you have to end your move closer to the closest enemy model than before you pile in. I can't find this anywhere in the rules. All it says is

"When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them."

is it the word "toward" that is the source of this interpretation?

If you're moving toward the cloest enemy model you will end the pile in move closer to that model.

Are you asking if it has to be a direct straight line? Because I say no RAW.

Lastly if you are already in base-to-base and the model is particulary large, we play the models already base contact can shimmy down the base to make way for more, afterall you are still moving toward the cloest model (or in this case orbiting their centre).

RAW, all that is required is you end your move closer to the nearest model than when you started ("toward") - but this doesn't have to be straight line because the word 'directly' is missing.

However, we play that if you are in base contact you cannot move again, because by definition you cannot move toward a model you are already touching.

We find this interpretation also makes precise movement/better charge planning more important, and doesn't result in the blob combats people seem to get so upset about.

(NB - by implication we also house rule that bases are used for measurement, not the model.)

RoperPG wrote:
RAW, all that is required is you end your move closer to the nearest model than when you started ("toward") - but this doesn't have to be straight line because the word 'directly' is missing.

However, we play that if you are in base contact you cannot move again, because by definition you cannot move toward a model you are already touching.

These have been my interpretations aswell. There is another interpretation that you can use if you want to make the game more like WFB - you may treat "moving towards" as moving along the line connecting the to models. If you and your opponent arrange the models in blocks an assault would be similar to what it used to be. The front lines fight while the back lines push and wait their turn (except when they are armed with long range melee weapon). Both can be fun. Try them.

Basically it can mean three things:

-Directly toward; you can move in a straight line towards the enemy model or you cant move at all.

-Continuously toward; any movement made by the model must be towards the enemy, you can't back up in order to end closer since that would be moving away.

-You just have to end closer than you begin.

As to which it actually means, that's up to you, since GW doesn't say and I doubt they will.

We used the "directly toward" interpretation, which seemed too limiting because it means that a bus formation will be perpetually stuck only fighting with the front guys while the rest wait in line, which looks very silly. It is somewhat mitigated because this only applies to pile-ins, not to the initial charge move, but still. We might go with the most lenient, which would mean "you just have to end up closer than you began, but you can also orbit around an enemy in base-to-base".

I like the moving toward an enemy but not the base orbiting. I think that is goofy and lets you slide between models, which doesn't make sense based on the rule's wording.

Generally in unit to unit combat base orbiting is largely blocked because models are 1" away and it doesn't allow models through.

It only really comes into play with large models.

I'm not particualry for or against base orbiting (I like this word though) it's just how it's played in my GW

What about the guy in the back trying to move towards the closest enemy (the one directly in front of the friend he's standing behind), but in doing so, he comes into contact with another enemy? What if this leaves him further from the aformentioned closest enemy then he was before? What if it didn't? If we don't go with the "directly towards" interpretation, I'm assuming this would be permitted in the former case but not the latter.

 Mymearan wrote:
What about the guy in the back trying to move towards the closest enemy (the one directly in front of the friend he's standing behind), but in doing so, he comes into contact with another enemy? What if this leaves him further from the aformentioned closest enemy then he was before? What if it didn't? If we don't go with the "directly towards" interpretation, I'm assuming this would be permitted in the former case but not the latter.

The move would be illegal because he cannot finish the move closer to the original closest model, so he can't move at all.

RAW, there are 3 possible interpretations;

You have to move directly in a straight line toward the target model.

You can 'spiral' toward a model as long as each fractional movement finishes closer to the target model.

You can move away from the target model as long as at the end of the move you are closer to the target model than when you started.

Without a clarification either way, as long as your local group are in agreement play whichever.

RoperPG wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
What about the guy in the back trying to move towards the closest enemy (the one directly in front of the friend he's standing behind), but in doing so, he comes into contact with another enemy? What if this leaves him further from the aformentioned closest enemy then he was before? What if it didn't? If we don't go with the "directly towards" interpretation, I'm assuming this would be permitted in the former case but not the latter.

The move would be illegal because he cannot finish the move closer to the original closest model, so he can't move at all.

RAW, there are 3 possible interpretations;

You have to move directly in a straight line toward the target model.

You can 'spiral' toward a model as long as each fractional movement finishes closer to the target model.

You can move away from the target model as long as at the end of the move you are closer to the target model than when you started.

Without a clarification either way, as long as your local group are in agreement play whichever.

I'm curious, of people who have played more than one of these ways, which do you prefer?

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
What about the guy in the back trying to move towards the closest enemy (the one directly in front of the friend he's standing behind), but in doing so, he comes into contact with another enemy? What if this leaves him further from the aformentioned closest enemy then he was before? What if it didn't? If we don't go with the "directly towards" interpretation, I'm assuming this would be permitted in the former case but not the latter.

The move would be illegal because he cannot finish the move closer to the original closest model, so he can't move at all.

RAW, there are 3 possible interpretations;

You have to move directly in a straight line toward the target model.

You can 'spiral' toward a model as long as each fractional movement finishes closer to the target model.

You can move away from the target model as long as at the end of the move you are closer to the target model than when you started.

Without a clarification either way, as long as your local group are in agreement play whichever.

I'm curious, of people who have played more than one of these ways, which do you prefer?

-Matt

Our group settled on the 3rd option (with the 'base contact = no pile-in move'), as the first two almost always create bottlenecks very quickly.
Bottlenecks still occur using the 3rd option, but we've found that there are two interesting quirks; 1) the 'attacking' player has to consider movement and charging more carefully - effectively you're aiming to fan out / encircle the opposing unit so that the pile-in allows a natural 'collapse' into the defending unit, maximising attacks, so a "just and just" charge doesn't really cut it - you almost want to overtake the unit.
2) the 'defending' player can essentially form up to take a charge by minimising their 'frontage' as far as possible, as beyond a certain point models at the 'rear' of the attacking unit will get stuck as the closest model is an inch or so away from them, but they have to navigate around models from their own unit and so can't complete a legal move 'toward'. Imagine the Old WFB 'lapping around'.
It also means you have to consider the order that you move individual models.

I like this fourth interpretation from Clash of Kings comp:

A model must end his movement nearer to the “closest enemy model” than when he started. A model cannot be moving away from his “closest enemy model” at any point during the 3” move, unless he is going around a friendly model or obstacle.

This allows you to be somewhat flexible when piling in around your own guys, but prevents "base orbiting" around the enemy.

It's not really a 4th option - there can't be a situation where you have to move around an enemy model to get to the closest model?
N.B. piling in specifies model, not "model from the unit".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because the model you have to move around is by definition the closest model.

RoperPG wrote:
It's not really a 4th option - there can't be a situation where you have to move around an enemy model to get to the closest model?
N.B. piling in specifies model, not "model from the unit".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because the model you have to move around is by definition the closest model.

It is i think. Using this interpretation, you can move away from the closest enemy as long as you are only moving past friendly models or obstacles. So far it's the same as your third option. But the difference comes as soon as you have passed all friendlies. Now you can no longer move away from the closest enemy under any circumstances. So in your third option, it would be perfectly legal to start behind your friend who is in base-to-base with your closest enemy model, walk around your friend, in the process moving away from the closest enemy, walk right up to said enemy, go around him, and end up behind him without even touching his base, because you are still closer to him than when you began. With the Clash interpretation, you can't. As soon as you pass your friend and touch the enemy, you have to stop.

 Mymearan wrote:
I have seen someeople say that when you pile in, you have to end your move closer to the closest enemy model than before you pile in. I can't find this anywhere in the rules. All it says is

"When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" towards the closest enemy model. This will allow the models in the unit to get closer to the enemy in order to attack them."

is it the word "toward" that is the source of this interpretation?

The term "towards" required very little interpretation. If you google "towards" it is defines as: "in the direction of". You may only move in the direction of the closest model. If at any point you aren't moving in the direction of the closest model, you aren't moving towards that model. moving perpendicular to a model to make room is clearly not moving in the direction of that model. If in between the beginning of your pile in and the end of your pile in the closest model changes, then by definition must have moved away from the original closest model at some point. Moving around to the side or back of another model involves you at some point not moving in the direction of that model.

This distinction provides a very rich strategy to charging. All charges are not equal, and simply getting a single model within .5 inches will not always result in the best possible frontage. If you want to re-adjust your frontage you'd retreat and charge next turn.