AoS 2 - piling in & shutting down enemy models

[Fluttershy]

shutting down enemy units/models:

 

the new FAQ piling in seems broken to me:

 

"Q: When one of my models piles in, if it is equally close to two different enemy models, do I have to finish the move as close or closer to each of those models? For example, if my model is in base contact with two enemy models, does it have to finish a pile-in move in base contact with both those models?

 

A: Yes to both questions – if this is impossible the model cannot move."

 

really? it is possible to shutdown enemy models at 2,9" range, wow! get your 2-3" maces ready...

 

[Choombatta]

I am confused, but how are the 2 flanking units getting to be 2.9" away?

It could not have been a charge or a move that puts them at this distance. So how do you get 2 separate units 2.9" away with another 3rd unit already in base contact?

If the 2 models in base contact are part of one of the flanking units, it would be an illegal move, as 2 models cannot be further then 1" away from the rest of the models in its' unit, so they could not have moved into base contact.

[stato]

12 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

And that's where the issue is.

'Fight' is pile-in and attack.

 You MUST fight.

You CAN pile-in.

You MUST attack.

You aren't allowed to "pass" if you have units who are eligible to fight.

If you don't pile-in and remain outside weapon range to prevent attacking then it is in effect a pass.

As I said, the RAW has a direct contradiction.

 

 

The rule is you cannot pass if a unit is available to Fight (with 3" of an enemy or made a charge).

You then pile in (where and how much is your choice), and must attack if any of your weapons are then in range.

Pile in is your choice, just like you can charge models from a unit away from the enemy as long as one model in the unit ends within 1/2" and the unit maintains coherency. There are even situations where you will pile in after charging and still nothing will be in range of your weapons (either another unit killed the enemy entirely or casualties were removed leaving you out of range).

 

[JackStreicher]

2 hours ago, Fluttershy said:

easy achievable with 1 unit

use 2 models to lock him down, remove those 2 basecontacts as casulties first

 

If someone would try to pull that ****** off I'd pack my things and go - you simply cannot measure that neatly in real life, there will always be a variance and a model that is closer so technically that situation is impossible to achieve, no matter how accurate you measure. Plus it clearly wasn't designed to be abused like this but hey... competetive scene... well

 

I see the real use for it when a unit (consisting of several models) gets attacked on two sides - which is absolutely fine.
But blocking a hero with such bs is beyond my understanding of a fair, good or even a fun game it's just abusive nonsense. It isn't even that hard to pull off since there are  enough armies with the Cogs and Deepstriking.

[BaldoBeardo]

8 minutes ago, stato said:

The rule is you cannot pass if a unit is available to Fight (with 3" of an enemy or made a charge).

You then pile in (where and how much is your choice), and must attack if any of your weapons are then in range.

Pile in is your choice, just like you can charge models from a unit away from the enemy as long as one model in the unit ends within 1/2" and the unit maintains coherency. There are even situations where you will pile in after charging and still nothing will be in range of your weapons (either another unit killed the enemy entirely or casualties were removed leaving you out of range).

 

Not disagreeing. But I firmly believe intentionally doing nothing is against RAI. I know the RAW disagrees.

If in doubt, never go with the option likely to get you found in a dumpster behind your gaming club.

[Squirrelmaster]

45 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Intent rules in this game though.

The real question is why?  Why put this in the faq at all?  What "issue" were they addressing?

Probably "I'm in b2b contact with two enemies, so long as I remain in b2b with one I can move away from the other."

[stato]

3 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Not disagreeing. But I firmly believe intentionally doing nothing is against RAI. I know the RAW disagrees.

If in doubt, never go with the option likely to get you found in a dumpster behind your gaming club.

RAI is your personal view. If it were true RAI would they not have made AoS2 pile-in rule to 'MUST pile-in as close to nearest enemy as possible'? would a charge not be 'all models in the unit MUST end the move as close as possible to an enemy model'?  there are already rules that require this (Bray-Shaman spell) so its not as if they cant write that.

The reason for the must-attack rule is due to the increasing number of units having abilities that bounce wounds back on attacking units, people were getting in combat and not attacking as they would take more wounds from their own attacks than the enemy units attacks.  As attacking falls under Fight phase, they have to make you activate units able to fight to make sure units that can attack will, pile-in wasnt changed as how, where and when you pile-in is a tactical choice.  See it as warriors positioning themselves, only getting into striking range when they see the right opening, but having to swing and slash at an enemy in their face.

[Vextol]

15 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Probably "I'm in b2b contact with two enemies, so long as I remain in b2b with one I can move away from the other."

Right but wasn't that the goal?  They changed the wording specifically to allow that then took it away.

[BaldoBeardo]

3 minutes ago, stato said:

RAI is your personal view. If it were true RAI would they not have made AoS2 pile-in rule to 'MUST pile-in as close to nearest enemy as possible'? would a charge not be 'all models in the unit MUST end the move as close as possible to an enemy model'?  there are already rules that require this (Bray-Shaman spell) so its not as if they cant write that.

 

No, that isn't the only other option to what's currently written, and creates its' own problems.

"Must move within melee range if possible" is one of them.

Plus, we're talking about a situation that's intended to produce a stalemate and would require the kind of micromeasurement usually seen in a physics lab. Overall, I'm pretty sure it's not just my view.

[decker_cky]

58 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

If someone would try to pull that ****** off I'd pack my things and go - you simply cannot measure that neatly in real life, there will always be a variance and a model that is closer so technically that situation is impossible to achieve, no matter how accurate you measure. Plus it clearly wasn't designed to be abused like this but hey... competetive scene... well

Pretty easy to accomplish with a specialized template if you're going for it. One template for 1.1", one template for 2.1". 

Issue being it's a really a poor FAQ, and GW's recent history indicates a willingness to correct mistakes like this. I don't see GW leaving in place the one situation in the game where positioning is absolutely critical.

[stato]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

If someone would try to pull that ****** off I'd pack my things and go - you simply cannot measure that neatly in real life, there will always be a variance and a model that is closer so technically that situation is impossible to achieve, no matter how accurate you measure. Plus it clearly wasn't designed to be abused like this but hey... competetive scene... well

Its a shite ruling thats the problem. As soon as someone mentioned when the new pile-in rules came out that 2 models in base contact locks an enemy in place i knew this is where it would end up, it was plainly obvious.

[BaldoBeardo]

Amazon sell digital Vernier calipers for less than a tenner. Game on!

[Fluttershy]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

If you're within 3", you must fight.

i have to attack with all melee weapons, if i don't have the range i can't attack, that doesn't implie i have to pile in

[amysrevenge]

You can only do this if you get your opponent to explicitly agree to it.  "Now, I really want to ruin your experience here.  Is it OK if I do it?"

[grungolah]

If the little circles are afraid to get too close to the big circle, bring bigger circles.

[Drofnum]

If one attempt at cheese has this much argument surrounding it are you really ever going to try it?  If you do will the person you play against ever play with you again?

Why is it even a discussion at this point?

[decker_cky]

1 hour ago, Drofnum said:

If one attempt at cheese has this much argument surrounding it are you really ever going to try it?  If you do will the person you play against ever play with you again?

Why is it even a discussion at this point?

Because it is the obvious implication of a ruling gw has just released.

As I think it through, it is quite difficult to set up because the charge move has to have one model ending within 0.5" of a target. I'm sure there will be creative traps where a savvy general makes it work.

[Drofnum]

28 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

Because it is the obvious implication of a ruling gw has just released.

As I think it through, it is quite difficult to set up because the charge move has to have one model ending within 0.5" of a target. I'm sure there will be creative traps where a savvy general makes it work.

We can agree to disagree, as many other have already stated its nigh impossible to actually set this up.  Trying to do so will just devolve in to an argument of if you truly are 2.9 or whatever inches away, with one side arguing they obviously are and the other arguing millimeters difference.

Its simply trying to cheese and exploit things, in a casual setting you will just alienate people and in a tourney the TO is going to come over and measure and tell you one side is off 99% of the time.  So I ask again, why bother?

[Euphanism]

It may be a 'legal' move, but if someone did this (and pulled out a specialized template for it) to me I would promptly ? as hard as possible, then switch to silly mode.

Can I spell out my name with all these skeletons? Who would win in a race between my Liberators and Sequitors? Can I grow enough symmetrical Gnarlmaws in front of this house that Festus is standing in front of that it looks like a little orchid?

Nothing takes the wind out of someone trying to game the system like totally ignoring whatever they're doing and having a good time anyway.

[Dallaen]

Why didn't they just say if it's equal distance you can choose to go one way or the other??  I mean it's not like the game revolves around blocks of infantry any more.  The whole point of no rigid regiments is because the fight is a chaotic swirling mess.

[stato]

If people are saying you cant measure it accurate enough (despite the a rule saying it can happen and what to do in that situation) how do you decide when you measure 2 models both at the same distance?  It happens often enough already where a charge range may be 8.5", but if you cant accurately measure should we even measure?  I always just let the opponent tell me where they have placed models, 'this guy has moved and is now 8.5" out so I'd need an 8" charge', so why wouldnt I let them say these 2 models are both 2.5" from your guy?

Example, 2 models in an enemy unit are same distance from an my model (shown by yellow and blue circles), if so then my model can only pile in forwards, making sure he stays at least same distance or nearer from each enemy model. In the image this means my model has to at least stay in contact with yellow and blue circles or closer. If I decide I cant measure which is nearest I can ignore one enemy model and instead pile-in to the other, maintaining contact or going into either the blue or yellow circles. But which is nearest? if I can choose i'd choose the yellow, then I can end up in range of the red circle which could be within attack range of an enemy hero. If my opponent can choose they will obviously choose the blue so i cant pile-in towards the hero.

Again, i agree its a stupid rule and they could easily have forseen the issues. Its not always about being 'gamey' and locking down models, but just playing to rules and ending up in situations you shouldnt have to overthink or roll-off to decide.  As @Dallaensays above "Why didn't they just say if it's equal distance you can choose to go one way or the other?"

Example Start point

 

Best pile-in if both models were ruled 'nearest'

 

Best pile-in if player can choose 'nearest'.  Potentially attacks the nearby hero.

[Vextol]

I think GW was trying to explicitly emulate the difficult decision a hero faces when presented with two equally challenging options.

Classic pile in dilema

[AlphaKennyThing]

21 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

You can only do this if you get your opponent to explicitly agree to it.  "Now, I really want to ruin your experience here.  Is it OK if I do it?"

That's exactly my thinking. If someone engineered an entire game to create this scenario (which is very, very difficult to do) I'd get a serious sad on.

"That's fine mate, you crack on measuring and when you're done, let me know, as I'm going to flip the table over. GW didn't FAQ no table flipping, y'see, so I'm sure you won't mind if I-"

"Wait, wait, wait! Fine, you can pile in."

"Cool, thought so."

[Overread]

Honestly GW should have ruled it that you can move to either one or the closest always unless you are in direct base to base with two units then you can't move. 

[BaldoBeardo]

3 minutes ago, Fluttershy said:

right, but he still can't attack with his 1"/2" attacks but he is still locked in place, as long as the 2 models beside are alive

Uh, no. If the two models in b2b are alive, he can use all attacks and overkill into the rest of the unit.

If the rest of the unit are more than 3" away, as soon as the two b2b models are dead he is no longer locked and is free to move or charge at the next opportunity.

[stato]

Yes, your example is almost correct. He can still move, but must not get any further from either, so he could nudge forward slightly.

People will argue you cant measure with that accuracy but how often are you not exactly in base contact, piling in nudges models so you can think youve locked someone to find out its not because the model is very light and sticky out arms and weapons push and pull models all the time. You agree between players which models are therefore locked when you pile in.

So you can do the same with the 2.9" example, tell your opponent you want to place those models exactly 2.9" from him and does he agree you have done that. Tag the model into combat but stop him doing any pile in and therefore attacks. Could be an amusing way to isolate key heros, charge units around them and position 'just-so' to hold them in place but out of attack range. If you do it well you could even prevent them retreating in their own turn, holding them there as long as you have models to spare!

They should have just went with 'pick which one to be the nearest', far cleaner.