How to Play Pile In - Warhammer TV clip on GW Community

[Methuselah]

Hi folks

in the second part of the video Rob appears to make a pile in move where he moves the piling in figure around another similarly based figure such that it is on the completely opposite side of the latter - effectively he moves it in a 180 degree arc around the stationary figure.  Even if they were 1 " bases, and if they were in base contact already and remained so, the outer edge would be moving much more than 3".  Furthermore Rob seems to be measuring the move in a straight line through the base of the stationary figure, as if it were passing through it to achieve the movement distance of 3", but then moves the piling in figure in an arc?

Doesn't look right to me - unless you can measure the 3" move in a straight line through any figure even if the actual move would be longer because you can't pass through other bases (unless a flyer i guess).  If that is the case its certainly easier than trying to measure the distance around an arc - and I've been short changing myself on pile ins for a long time..........!

[rokapoke]

I guess GW is implying that the simplest possible interpretation of the rule is the one to use? I've also been roughly measuring arcs and it's a pain in the rump. 

[Methuselah]

It would certainly be easier - but how does the rest of the community play it?  How would any of you TO's out there view it?

[LordRogalDorn]

I would measure true distances. Positioning your models and planning for you pile ins is one of the hardest things to master in AoS...unless everything has fly, that kinda makes it all easier. But still, I measure the arcs of movement for walking models. 

[Attackmack]

I also noticed he seemed to measure distance THROUGH other models. Which is a no-go according to the rules.

I would still measure "true" distance. Which, btw, includes measuring from the front side of the model/base if it turns anywhere along its movement since "no part of the model can move further then its Move characteristics". For the smaller models/bases a 180 degree turn accounts for roughly 1" and I would suggest not minding such movements but for something like a Khorgorath or the celestant on dracoth, it accounts for several inches and can really have an effect on all kinds of movement.

Then again, since all models are considered to have a 360 degree view at all times, there is nothing forcing a model to ever turn its facing in any direction so you COULD simply move the model backwards and measuring the "turn distance" for a model becomes meaningless.

So disregard everything I said...

[rokapoke]

15 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

I would still measure "true" distance. Which, btw, includes measuring from the front side of the model/base if it turns anywhere along its movement since "no part of the model can move further then its Move characteristics".

In games I've played, the rotation is irrelevant (except non-circular bases) because we measure base-to-base, but when measuring to the model you are 100% correct.

[Attackmack]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

In games I've played, the rotation is irrelevant (except non-circular bases) because we measure base-to-base, but when measuring to the model you are 100% correct.

Yeah in principle but then again, since facing is irrelevant and models can move in any direction, there is nothing stopping someone from moving their models backwards, sideways and diagonal. In principle you dont need to change the facing at any point during the game and with that in mind, distance can always be measured from the base at the point closest to the direction of movement.

If the model had to face the direction they move it would be different. Also, in combat with oval bases tactics may have you wanting to turn the model in which case it would become important to measure correctly.

Now im just nitpicking stuff for the sake of discussion, I would never care about stuff like this in an actual game since it only adds tedious micromanagement and open up for disagreements. Better to just disregard turning, its a skirmish game after all!

[Methuselah]

Thanks for your comments so far folks.

Have a think about this:

The last sentence of 'MOVING' in the MOVEMENT phase in the rules clearly states that 'no part of a model may move further than the models Move characteristic'.  In the preceding sentence it clearly states that 'a model cannot be moved across another model' (although the flying section describes an exception to this).  Given that facing is irrelevant, then for circular bases, this means that the maximum distance that a model with a circular base can move is effectively defined by the centre of its base - so the actual distance along the path/route moved by the centre point of the base is what needs to be measured.  This means that for two 1" bases in contact, moving one base around the other, maintaining contact at all times,  the moving base couldn't quite make it to 180 degrees around the stationary figure as that would require the centre of its base to move 3.142 inches (pi x radius, where the radius is one inch measured from the centre point of the stationary figure to the centre point of the moving figure), which is less than 3 inches.  However it is so close though that it probably wouldn't matter that much in most cases.  Clearly though, anything with a bigger circular base isn't going to get anywhere near 180 degrees around another such figure......

HOWEVER

Piling in occurs in the COMBAT PHASE.  All it states in the rules there, in Step 1 is that 'you may move each model in the unit up to 3 inches towards the closest enemy model......'  Note that, it doesn't say that no part of the model may move further than the models move characteristic, neither does it say that you can't move across other models,  both of which are explicitely excluded in the movement phase.

So - was Rob moving correctly in the video?  Maybe you can just measure 3 inches in a straight line and cross through other models with impunity to do so?  Perhaps Rokapoke's first eloquent answer (" I guess GW is implying that the simplest possible interpretation of the rule is the one to use") is the correct one?  It would certainly make measuring pile in moves a lot easier......

But there again, the Combat Phase part of the FAQ talks about moving around models to pile in, implying perhaps that you can't move as Rob seemed to be doing.....

I invite further comments.......

 

 

[Ben]

I think you are reading far to much into a simple video that was used to demonstrate the rough basics of piling in.  

[Methuselah]

3 hours ago, Ben said:

I think you are reading far to much into a simple video that was used to demonstrate the rough basics of piling in.  

Thanks for the comment, Ben.

I think it is laudable that GW have made an attempt at clarifying/illustrating this aspect of the game - but unfortunately I think it is far too simple an attempt - it adds little to what is written and is potentially misleading.  To my mind, it also encourages what I would term 'loose play' and gives the impression that measurement is not important - you can't measure distances accurately by hovering a scale several inches higher than where it needs to be (unless you have no choice if models get in the way etc.)  As LordRogalDorn said - positioning and planning  pile in moves is hard to master.  In my opinion good play in this regard should be rewarded, rather than defeated by someone who moves carelessly. 

Hopefully GW will continue to engage with the community by providing clarifications and guidance, but with more attention paid to the devil that is in the detail.  

If someone moved one figure through another in a pile in in a competition, and pointed to the video as GW proof that what they were doing was right, what would you say then?  That's why it needs to be right first time?  

 

[Ben]

8 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Thanks for the comment, Ben.

I think it is laudable that GW have made an attempt at clarifying/illustrating this aspect of the game - but unfortunately I think it is far too simple an attempt - it adds little to what is written and is potentially misleading.  To my mind, it also encourages what I would term 'loose play' and gives the impression that measurement is not important - you can't measure distances accurately by hovering a scale several inches higher than where it needs to be (unless you have no choice if models get in the way etc.)  As LordRogalDorn said - positioning and planning  pile in moves is hard to master.  In my opinion good play in this regard should be rewarded, rather than defeated by someone who moves carelessly. 

Hopefully GW will continue to engage with the community by providing clarifications and guidance, but with more attention paid to the devil that is in the detail.  

If someone moved one figure through another in a pile in in a competition, and pointed to the video as GW proof that what they were doing was right, what would you say then?  That's why it needs to be right first time?  

 

I'd say exactly what I said above

[Methuselah]

On 20 December 2016 at 9:56 AM, Ben said:

I'd say exactly what I said above

Not sure that would be too helpful an answer to be honest !  My guess is that  you would not allow one figure to move through another to pile in and that you would have to try to measure actual distance around figures or other obstacles.  I am not sure why you don't seem to want to say so ! My point is that the video doesn't seem to show correct play, unless most of us have been playing it wrong. If the video is supposed to be an aid to understanding the rules it doesn't really help in this regard, in my opinion. For the reasons I gave above one could argue most of us have been playing it wrong........

[Ben]

I couldn't be much clearer. You are worrying far too much about what was an 'intro game' style demo of how pile in works.  

Ignore the video, it has no impact on the rules. 

You cant move through models