How To Pile In - by Warhammer TV!

[Gaz Taylor]

It's a great video and I think a nice teaser for the Warhammer Live content coming up  

[RuneBrush]

I watched it last night and thought it was good.  Rob came across really well and it's certainly cleared some of points up.  I think everyone has valid points in that a couple of points weren't quite on the money and a top-down camera angle would have been more useful (possibly even with a plain black board to highlight the models).  Does say to me that base-to-base may be included as part of matched play rules.

[KHHaunts]

8 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I think that after this video the people who were already doing right are more certain that they are right and the people who weren't sure if they were doing it right are less sure what they're supposed to be doing.

I wouldn't say it was flawless, but I like what I'm seeing (particularly as somebody whose first and pretty much only miniature gaming experience has been AoS).

Exactly.

If any GW staff members see this they should know that i definatley approve of what they tried to do.

But lets be honest that video was two minutes and if any of us had the power to make a ruling like that we would do with ease. If GW are going to wait and wait before they do one then they may as well do a 10 minute comprahensive cover of pile ins and many of the different problems people have faced. In addition a post on the facebook page to let us know that they are doing it (Like with GHB2) and we could send a wave of questions so they can pick out what the problem was.

As it stands with that orbiting stuff they actually added an element to pileins i hadent even considered rather than answer any questions i already had o_0

[Turragor]

12 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

Exactly.

If any GW staff members see this they should know that i definatley approve of what they tried to do.

But lets be honest that video was two minutes and if any of us had the power to make a ruling like that we would do with ease. If GW are going to wait and wait before they do one then they may as well do a 10 minute comprahensive cover of pile ins and many of the different problems people have faced. In addition a post on the facebook page to let us know that they are doing it (Like with GHB2) and we could send a wave of questions so they can pick out what the problem was.

As it stands with that orbiting stuff they actually added an element to pileins i hadent even considered rather than answer any questions i already had o_0

I think they (like me, like many) think it is elementary. It IS elementary. People are overthinking it, looking for exact boundaries I guess. I understand that approach too.

They put that video out and had no idea that people would (somehow) imagine that the 2 Rob didn't move were 'blocked' as he didn't move them in the video. They thought (no doubt) that they'd save time by not moving the models that wouldn't be attacking anyway.

I think were they to put out a 100 minute video on pile ins, people would still ask things like 'but what HAND do you use when piling in? In the video - 100 minutes, too long to be an accident! - Rob uses only his RIGHT hand. Are LEFT hands not allowed when piling in?'

And I don't mean that as a means of disrespecting people who genuinely want to play the correct way and not take advantage. Checking what your opponent thinks also fulfills this criteria - I accept almost any of my opponents' interpretations and have played pile in variations including base to base; model to model; straight line pile in only; no orbit pile; closer to nearest in any way the full gamut! If you both play the same no one has the upper hand (though combats subtly change).

I just think that people are seeking an OTT amount of specificity for a simple ruleset. That's what I think - opinion only.

Part of me is cursing myself for typing this at all, people will still be confused and won't feel any more untwisted in the knickers department.

[KHHaunts]

25 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I think they (like me, like many) think it is elementary. It IS elementary. People are overthinking it, looking for exact boundaries I guess. I understand that approach too.

They put that video out and had no idea that people would (somehow) imagine that the 2 Rob didn't move were 'blocked' as he didn't move them in the video. They thought (no doubt) that they'd save time by not moving the models that wouldn't be attacking anyway.

I think were they to put out a 100 minute video on pile ins, people would still ask things like 'but what HAND do you use when piling in? In the video - 100 minutes, too long to be an accident! - Rob uses only his RIGHT hand. Are LEFT hands not allowed when piling in?'

And I don't mean that as a means of disrespecting people who genuinely want to play the correct way and not take advantage. Checking what your opponent thinks also fulfills this criteria - I accept almost any of my opponents' interpretations and have played pile in variations including base to base; model to model; straight line pile in only; no orbit pile; closer to nearest in any way the full gamut! If you both play the same no one has the upper hand (though combats subtly change).

I just think that people are seeking an OTT amount of specificity for a simple ruleset. That's what I think - opinion only.

Part of me is cursing myself for typing this at all, people will still be confused and won't feel any more untwisted in the knickers department.

Yeah i can understand that. Hence why, like i said, im in no way annoyed with what they have done.

The only problem with a loose core rules is that. I KNOW how to pile in. . . . .as far as im concerned. My way is tactically rewarding and follows the letter of the law.

The problem is that being my interpretation means that while 9 times out of 10 my opponent will have similar if not the same concept. there will always be 1 that dosent. And through no fault of there own!.

Ive seen plenty of rule interpretations on TGA that i have never considered but when i glance back at the rules do fall within its boundaries.

At the end of the day it would be lovely to have a perfect set of rules as a start and then modify them as you want with your opponent knowing that you have the comfort of falling back onto something you both have to agree on.

Thats not going to happen . . . . .but.

We all pay alot of money for this hobby so in my mind part of that price is the right to demand the GW pursue this perfect rule set for the sake of improvement.

Ill never lose sleep over it. and it does nothing to lessen my love of the game. and ive never played a game where me and my opponent cant get past it.

But may as well shoot for the stars if we can.

[Turragor]

I understand where you are coming from 100%

[KHHaunts]

4 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I understand where you are coming from 100%

Hooraay a forum agreement!

Its beautiful thing

[Turragor]

Just now, KHHaunts said:

Hooraay a forum agreement!

Its beautiful thing

I was only going to add one small edit - a more philosophical take - which is:

Maybe GW don't want to do an 'exact science' kind of rule set? Like it moves further from the pick up and play, reach agreement with your partner angle they worked on to start with.

Basically I think their difficulty right now is keeping that free spirited, free flowing nature going (to satisfy those who were drawn to that in AoS) and then satisfying the more rule oriented folks who were either also drawn to AoS's simplicity (but not fuzziness) or who came back with points.

THOSE camps are gonna be hard to simultaneously satisfy heh

[Chris Tomlin]

16 hours ago, polarbear said:

Great to see videos like this. However, I still don't think piling in is clear enough. That "tactical" move of not going fully into B2B contact so he can wrap around is a bit gamey for me. You should almost never go into B2B contact then (if you can), to keep being able to orbit models and get ever so slightly closer, even though orbiting was outlawed by the FAQ.

This is common place and is pretty tactical if you ask me. There can be consideration to activating a "sub par" choice just to pile in first and deny your opponent the orbital move (if that's what we're calling it) etc.

I would note though that piling in is by far my least favourite rule in AoS. Still feels clunky and not as elegant as most of the rest of it.

Looking forward to watching the vid!

[KHHaunts]

10 minutes ago, Turragor said:

I was only going to add one small edit - a more philosophical take - which is:

Maybe GW don't want to do an 'exact science' kind of rule set? Like it moves further from the pick up and play, reach agreement with your partner angle they worked on to start with.

Basically I think their difficulty right now is keeping that free spirited, free flowing nature going (to satisfy those who were drawn to that in AoS) and then satisfying the more rule oriented folks who were either also drawn to AoS's simplicity (but not fuzziness) or who came back with points.

THOSE camps are gonna be hard to simultaneously satisfy heh

Well being a big company i think that taking flak is all part of the territory

And i think the keeping this free spirited play will always result in people voicing concerns with the rules.

If they are happy to let the public vent at them in order to keep the game free then good on them

[Nico]

Quote

I think were they to put out a 100 minute video on pile ins, people would still ask things like 'but what HAND do you use when piling in? In the video - 100 minutes, too long to be an accident! - Rob uses only his RIGHT hand. Are LEFT hands not allowed when piling in?'

And I don't mean that as a means of disrespecting people who genuinely want to play the correct way and not take advantage. Checking what your opponent thinks also fulfills this criteria - I accept almost any of my opponents' interpretations and have played pile in variations including base to base; model to model; straight line pile in only; no orbit pile; closer to nearest in any way the full gamut! If you both play the same no one has the upper hand (though combats subtly change).

This is a good point. You could indeed do a lengthy video on pile in "tricks". 

All I would say on the second paragraph is that this is something that the opponent should raise at the start of the game if they want to change it rather than at the start of a pile in move in the third combat phase (ending up "closer to nearest in any way the full gamut!" is what I understand to be the rule in brief).

Quote

This is common place and is pretty tactical if you ask me. There can be consideration to activating a "sub par" choice just to pile in first and deny your opponent the orbital move (if that's what we're calling it) etc.

I would note though that piling in is by far my least favourite rule in AoS. Still feels clunky and not as elegant as most of the rest of it.

Looking forward to watching the vid!

Definitely agree with the first point. It can be massive sometimes, if you can block one enemy model from moving by touching base and that enemy model is then blocking an enemy hero behind it from reaching to your hero etc..

I think it's worth saying "I'm touching base" when you are moving so as to block an enemy model orbit and spiral in so as to preclude an argument later (the models may have shifted slightly in the interim...) I normally start spamming "ok yep?" as a question to prompt an opponent for any objections when I pile in, but I'm mindful that it can be a time sink. I'm a lot faster than I was at this part of the game.

Would move 3 inches in any direction unless you're already touching base (e.g. from the charge move prior) or an earlier pile in make it too easy for chaff units and archers to get away from melee units (particularly MSU melee units)?

[Chris Tomlin]

@Nico - Part of me thinks something more simplified, such as a 3" move (as you suggested), would play a whole lot smoother. But if I'm honest I have not considered all the ramifications of such a change.

[KHHaunts]

12 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

@Nico - Part of me thinks something more simplified, such as a 3" move (as you suggested), would play a whole lot smoother. But if I'm honest I have not considered all the ramifications of such a change.

If a model is within half inch of an enemy model its "pinned" the rest can move 3 inches where ever so long as coherency is maintained?

 

[Penguinus]

A unit a two models has been charged from different directions by two units. Both models could reach either unit with a pile in move, but each model is closer to different units. By moving each model towards their closest unit they would break coherency as a pair.

What are the options here? Am i not allowed to move at all? Can i pile into the same unit as coherency trumps nearest model?

This has happened a few times and i'm not really sure on the best solution... we just let the models move to closest enemy either even though its wrong as its more fun, but it would interesting to know what a more tournament focused ruling would be

[DaveBusse]

My interpretation would be you can pile in to the extent that you maintain coherency and both models move towards the nearest enemy model. So you're not going to get a full pile in. 

As they're getting surrounded I can see it making sense to stay together and watch each side instead of getting separated.

[Nico]

You can get some horrible situations where two monsters hit each end of a line of big based cavalry. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I always took that as a deliberate feature, tbh. I always fly into flanks with single models, so mine can get all its attacks in while the charged unit has to shuffle into the fight over a turn or two.

Heck, I do that in charge-retreat cycles tag-teaming between two units to keep a unit pinned down and hurting.

[Attackmack]

First post so be gentle!

Is he measuring the pile-in in a straight line from start to finish (even though the model is supposedly moving AROUND the enemy) or is he measuring then just eyeballing the wrap-around to an approximate position?

I was under the impression that you had to measure and move around enemy models also in pile-ins and the difference in distance between doing so and not could be pretty important in some situations.

[Gaz Taylor]

12 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

First post so be gentle!

Is he measuring the pile-in in a straight line from start to finish (even though the model is supposedly moving AROUND the enemy) or is he measuring then just eyeballing the wrap-around to an approximate position?

I was under the impression that you had to measure and move around enemy models also in pile-ins and the difference in distance between doing so and not could be pretty important in some situations.

I would say Rob is doing what most people do and measuring round but having to eyeball it as the Combat Gauge doesn't bend.

[Attackmack]

2 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I would say Rob is doing what most people do and measuring round but having to eyeball it as the Combat Gauge doesn't bend.

Yes of course, im not usually picky about a few mm here and there and that is how I would measure it as well but being an instructional video, and one to sort out some very...passionate...debates that have been around the subject I would have wished for a more detailed and extensive explanation.

 

[Gaz Taylor]

58 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

Yes of course, im not usually picky about a few mm here and there and that is how I would measure it as well but being an instructional video, and one to sort out some very...passionate...debates that have been around the subject I would have wished for a more detailed and extensive explanation.

 

Problem is to sort out somebody very passionate, this video would probably be very, very dull. Personally this is the nice middle ground which is suitable for everybody.