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'm not soliciting opinions on what the rules say. (As far as I'm concerned, they're vague and there are multiple reasonable interpretations). What I'd like to know is how people are applying them to a particular situation.

Do you allow a model that is already in close combat range of an enemy model to move into CC range with a different enemy model in a subsequent pile in move? The purpose of this movement would be to make room for other friendly models to get into CC range of an enemy model.

Thanks.

Bede19025 wrote:
I'm not soliciting opinions on what the rules say. (As far as I'm concerned, they're vague and there are multiple reasonable interpretations). What I'd like to know is how people are applying them to a particular situation.

Do you allow a model that is already in close combat range of an enemy model to move into CC range with a different enemy model in a subsequent pile in move? The purpose of this movement would be to make room for other friendly models to get into CC range of an enemy model.

Thanks.

That's how we've been playing it. We've been playing it that each model is allowed its full 3" of movement, but must end the movement as close or closer to an enemy model than where it started. We're not requiring that it ONLY move towards the closest enemy model. Doing otherwise severely limits the number of combatants who can get into combat and doesn't feel fun for my normal group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other words, models in base to base contact with an enemy can still move 3", so long as they end that move in base to base contact with an enemy. This allows combatants to "slide" around a combat and allow more models to fight.

But by doing that you're actually removing an element of the tactical considerations during the movement and charge phase.

If I bottleneck my Decimators due to bad movement, it's not in my opponent's interests to give me a Mulligan. I'm effectively asking my previous decision making to be forgiven at his expense.

It also prevents units 'dragging' opposition models out of combat, e.g. you have a horde of skellies attacking Liberators.
If I drop Prosecutors 4" behind the rear of the skellies, chances are that the skellies at the rear will be locked in position due to coherency rules, which reduces the skellies who can actually get to attack my Liberators.

RoperPG wrote:
But by doing that you're actually removing an element of the tactical considerations during the movement and charge phase.

If I bottleneck my Decimators due to bad movement, it's not in my opponent's interests to give me a Mulligan. I'm effectively asking my previous decision making to be forgiven at his expense.

It also prevents units 'dragging' opposition models out of combat, e.g. you have a horde of skellies attacking Liberators.
If I drop Prosecutors 4" behind the rear of the skellies, chances are that the skellies at the rear will be locked in position due to coherency rules, which reduces the skellies who can actually get to attack my Liberators.

True, but we enjoy the game less that way. It seems counter-intuitive that your troops wouldn't switch opponents to allow their buddies into the fight. The last example is a good one as it lets you control the enemy, but again seems entirely counter-intuitive. In a real world situation (I know this is a game), the Skellies wouldn't get all uncomfortable and unable to fight if you stand 2" away from them. They'd simply break coherency and fight.

RoperPG wrote:
But by doing that you're actually removing an element of the tactical considerations during the movement and charge phase.

If I bottleneck my Decimators due to bad movement, it's not in my opponent's interests to give me a Mulligan. I'm effectively asking my previous decision making to be forgiven at his expense.

It also prevents units 'dragging' opposition models out of combat, e.g. you have a horde of skellies attacking Liberators.
If I drop Prosecutors 4" behind the rear of the skellies, chances are that the skellies at the rear will be locked in position due to coherency rules, which reduces the skellies who can actually get to attack my Liberators.

The whole concept of 'bottleknecking' is the problem. You're thinking of the models as pieces in a chessgame with exact rules. Other people think of them as representing actual moving creatures that we are simulating.

The game grew out of historical miniatures, where the goal is simulating a battle. So for many of us, we don't see 3 models in a unit fighting and 10 more standing around as realistic. Our general rule is "are you moving more models into combat?" as units would normally try to get those people into a positition to support the models in the unit, or damage the enemy. Especially now that we have moved from a skirmish game from a block unit system.

I play that it has to be towards the closest enemy model, but don't play that it has to taken in a straight line. So models already in base contact don't get to move, but their comrades behind can move around them to engage their closest.

I find this way prevents massive moshpits.

 Bottle wrote:
I play that it has to be towards the closest enemy model, but don't play that it has to taken in a straight line. So models already in base contact don't get to move, but their comrades behind can move around them to engage their closest.

I find this way prevents massive moshpits.

Keep in mind that base contact isn't required. Models generally have a 1" or 2" range for combat (depending on their weapon), meaning they can fight without being in base contact.

So do you only prohibit models in base contact from moving or do you also prohibit models in Close Combat range from moving?

We allow up to 3" provided you don't move further from the closest enemy model from where you started. This allows a reasonable degree of pileing-in without turning it into a 40k moshpit, and also seems to reward the player in the strongest position (eg, flanks).

 mikhaila wrote:


The whole concept of 'bottleknecking' is the problem. You're thinking of the models as pieces in a chessgame with exact rules. Other people think of them as representing actual moving creatures that we are simulating.

The game grew out of historical miniatures, where the goal is simulating a battle. So for many of us, we don't see 3 models in a unit fighting and 10 more standing around as realistic. Our general rule is "are you moving more models into combat?" as units would normally try to get those people into a positition to support the models in the unit, or damage the enemy. Especially now that we have moved from a skirmish game from a block unit system.

That's as maybe, but my way doesn't require rewording or ignoring rules.
I'm not saying you're wrong for thinking or playing like that, but I'm sticking to the RAW.
Nobody ever complained in fantasy when flank charged units couldn't turn and face, for exampl, which is also not that realistic.
Or to use your way of thinking, if you've issued bad orders to troops that cause them to manoeuvre badly, you will get confusion and panic when the enemy is engaged.

Yes, it's a wargame, but it's an abstraction. To my group, the strict rules on what happens within that 3" bubble and levering that to your advantage is an intentional part of the game.

 mikhaila wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
But by doing that you're actually removing an element of the tactical considerations during the movement and charge phase.

If I bottleneck my Decimators due to bad movement, it's not in my opponent's interests to give me a Mulligan. I'm effectively asking my previous decision making to be forgiven at his expense.

It also prevents units 'dragging' opposition models out of combat, e.g. you have a horde of skellies attacking Liberators.
If I drop Prosecutors 4" behind the rear of the skellies, chances are that the skellies at the rear will be locked in position due to coherency rules, which reduces the skellies who can actually get to attack my Liberators.

The whole concept of 'bottleknecking' is the problem. You're thinking of the models as pieces in a chessgame with exact rules. Other people think of them as representing actual moving creatures that we are simulating.

The game grew out of historical miniatures, where the goal is simulating a battle. So for many of us, we don't see 3 models in a unit fighting and 10 more standing around as realistic. Our general rule is "are you moving more models into combat?" as units would normally try to get those people into a positition to support the models in the unit, or damage the enemy. Especially now that we have moved from a skirmish game from a block unit system.

Allowing pile in around existing models is not really how its supposed to work and it gives the large Infantry/Mosterous Infantry a huge advantage as many of those only have a 1"melee range.When facing Ogres I try to place my troops on charge in such a way that the opponent is stuck with his second row not being able to make it past the model in front when they have the pile in move to the "nearest model".This is one of the only tactics that blocks of single wound rank and file troops can do to mitigate the huge amount of attacks that come from monster infantry.

Its try that it can get rather "fiddly" when using the RAW for this but as long as the battle remains somewhat spread out and not just a mosh pit,its not that hard to deal with.

Minijack wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
But by doing that you're actually removing an element of the tactical considerations during the movement and charge phase.

If I bottleneck my Decimators due to bad movement, it's not in my opponent's interests to give me a Mulligan. I'm effectively asking my previous decision making to be forgiven at his expense.

It also prevents units 'dragging' opposition models out of combat, e.g. you have a horde of skellies attacking Liberators.
If I drop Prosecutors 4" behind the rear of the skellies, chances are that the skellies at the rear will be locked in position due to coherency rules, which reduces the skellies who can actually get to attack my Liberators.

The whole concept of 'bottleknecking' is the problem. You're thinking of the models as pieces in a chessgame with exact rules. Other people think of them as representing actual moving creatures that we are simulating.

The game grew out of historical miniatures, where the goal is simulating a battle. So for many of us, we don't see 3 models in a unit fighting and 10 more standing around as realistic. Our general rule is "are you moving more models into combat?" as units would normally try to get those people into a positition to support the models in the unit, or damage the enemy. Especially now that we have moved from a skirmish game from a block unit system.

Allowing pile in around existing models is not really how its supposed to work and it gives the large Infantry/Mosterous Infantry a huge advantage as many of those only have a 1"melee range.When facing Ogres I try to place my troops on charge in such a way that the opponent is stuck with his second row not being able to make it past the model in front when they have the pile in move to the "nearest model".This is one of the only tactics that blocks of single wound rank and file troops can do to mitigate the huge amount of attacks that come from monster infantry.

Its try that it can get rather "fiddly" when using the RAW for this but as long as the battle remains somewhat spread out and not just a mosh pit,its not that hard to deal with.

Sorry, I actually took the OP serious when he said "How do you play it"? So that's how I answered the question. Tonite we had 12 guys playing it that way. Not saying it's right or wrong, nor do I care how anyone else plays it or trying to convince you.

The question was 'how do you play it?", and that's what we do here.

Bede19025 wrote:
I'm not soliciting opinions on what the rules say. (As far as I'm concerned, they're vague and there are multiple reasonable interpretations). What I'd like to know is how people are applying them to a particular situation.

To be honest, I really don't see how the rules are vague in this instance, and that will influence my answers below, so please do read on.

Bede19025 wrote:
Do you allow a model that is already in close combat range of an enemy model to move into CC range with a different enemy model in a subsequent pile in move? The purpose of this movement would be to make room for other friendly models to get into CC range of an enemy model.

Suppose I have one model that made a charge move, and got within 1/2" of an enemy model. As the rule isn't vague in my opinion, when it states you may make a 3" pile in move towards the closest enemy model, that would mean any other enemy model would have to be closer than that 1/2" distance between my model and the first enemy. Otherwise, the second enemy model isn't the closest and the pile in move couldn't be made towards the second enemy model.

For my next example, assume one of my units to have made a charge move. One model is within 1/2" of its target, the rest made their move, and is within range of their spears (2"). As the rules still aren't vague to me, if this unit wishes to make a pile in move, they still have to do so towards the closest enemy model. This is likely to be towards the enemy unit already in range, when it is the only unit they are currently engaged with.

Elaborating this example, suppose my line of spearmen is assaulted from the rear, by a group of swordsmen. One enemy unit is within 2" (being my spear range), the new attackers are 1" away (their sword range) except for the first model, which was forced to end the charge move within 1/2" of my unit. The rules still aren't vague about one thing. If I choose to make a pile in move, as I am not forced to do so, it should be towards the closest enemy models. So it would be likely to start with a little ganging up on the closest charging model, and then being forced to move towards the new swordsmen unit. They are the closest enemy models now, at least for the majority of my models.

Then we come to the answer to your question. Would I allow a pile in to make room for other models? No. Yes. It depends on whether or not other models draw yours away, by being closer than the targets you are already in range of. In my opinion there is nothing vague about that.
Would I allow you to circle my model to make room? Nope. You are then not moving toward my model. You are circumventing it, even if you somehow try to claim you end your move closer to my model. Just look up the words "Toward" and "Circumvent" in a dictionary. There is nothing vague there too.

Bede19025 wrote:
Thanks.

Welcome.

The rule doesn't really have room for interpretation. Just look up the definition of towards. It means "in the direction of." Also, I think this is the best way to play it.

If a model is in contact with an enemy, dont move it. Models can also only move directly towards the closest enemy model. This means that the formation you engage in is basically the formation you have to hold. If you need to reform your battle lines, retreat. Playing it this way provides much needed utility to retreating and allows players to capitalize on things like enemy flanks and formation. I find it kind of funny that 8th ed players bemoan the lack of formation play but then also want super liberal pile in rules.

c0wb0ys7y13 wrote:
The rule doesn't really have room for interpretation. Just look up the definition of towards. It means "in the direction of." Also, I think this is the best way to play it.

If a model is in contact with an enemy, dont move it. Models can also only move directly towards the closest enemy model. This means that the formation you engage in is basically the formation you have to hold. If you need to reform your battle lines, retreat. Playing it this way provides much needed utility to retreating and allows players to capitalize on things like enemy flanks and formation. I find it kind of funny that 8th ed players bemoan the lack of formation play but then also want super liberal pile in rules.

I know its heresy, but the concept of 'towards', and 'directly towards' are not the same. due to the addition of the word 'directly'. Privateer Press lays out the difference very succinctly for the spatially impaired, but if you feel that learning euclidean geometry is something that should be independent of the politics of gaming habits ill summarize:

a model could spiral his movement around a stationary point and always be moving towards it.

a model must move in a straight line towards a stationary point to be moving directly towards it..

Kiwidru wrote:

c0wb0ys7y13 wrote:
The rule doesn't really have room for interpretation. Just look up the definition of towards. It means "in the direction of." Also, I think this is the best way to play it.

If a model is in contact with an enemy, dont move it. Models can also only move directly towards the closest enemy model. This means that the formation you engage in is basically the formation you have to hold. If you need to reform your battle lines, retreat. Playing it this way provides much needed utility to retreating and allows players to capitalize on things like enemy flanks and formation. I find it kind of funny that 8th ed players bemoan the lack of formation play but then also want super liberal pile in rules.

I know its heresy, but the concept of 'towards', and 'directly towards' are not the same. due to the addition of the word 'directly'. Privateer Press lays out the difference very succinctly for the spatially impaired, but if you feel that learning euclidean geometry is something that should be independent of the politics of gaming habits ill summarize:

a model could spiral his movement around a stationary point and always be moving towards it.

a model must move in a straight line towards a stationary point to be moving directly towards it..

I feel that's a very specific privateer press definition. You can very easily tell if your moving towards a point. At any point during your movement you could take the vector of your current trajectory. If that vector does not intersect that point you wouldn't be moving in that point. Playing AoS in this way means that troop formation becomes nearly as impactful as it was in 8th ed. The spiral example you provided is an example of moving to a target, not moving toward a target. But god knows a grammar argument on a forum has never achieved results so here's to hoping GW puts out a FAQ like it did with 8th ed.

If you are playing rules as written then you can orbit the model so long as you end closer then when you started, for it to work you have to ignore the bases and measure model to model as intended by the rules. If I am 1/2" away from you in your front, move 2" around you clockwise and rotate towards you so my model ends up 1/4" away from you I just moved closer to the closest model than when I started my pile in. That is a valid tactic and within the RAW.

We don't use a universal interpretation yet... I tend to like "B2B models can't move, the rest can move around them as long as they're moving the shortest possible route to the enemy"