Freezing units with flanking

[Mayple]

The theorycrafting continues! (I wish there was a thread for this kind of stuff)

Question! If two units (or singular models) are placed 2-2,5 inches away at opposite sides of an enemy unit of 20ish dudes who's attacks have a range of 1 - am I correct in assuming that the enemy unit can not pile-in properly due to unit coherency, and will be left with the following choices?

A. Freeze completely, unable to pile-in, or attack.

B. Form a miniature congaline on one, or either side, to maintain unit coherency at the cost of damage output (very few models manage to reach our own units, and we are able to respond with a full damage output attack in return. 

C. Retreat. 

 

If one, or both of the flanking units have increased range (spears, etc) there is potential for attacking the enemy without fear of a strong, organized attack in return*.

*not counting other units on the battlefield, and assuming optimal conditions for the sake of argument.

 

Am I correct in my assesment/understanding of pile-in rules, or did I overlook something?

[rokapoke]

Each model that piles in must end up closer to the nearest enemy model. Of your options, #1 is definitely not required but may be chosen (though if they have the reach for it they can attack, even without piling in). #2 is nearly correct - you aren't required to move all the models if you don't want to. #3 is definitely an option. 

[Kurrilino]

Maybe you got the coherency wrong here.

In a battle a unit can split, if pile in forces you to do so. But right after battle the unit has to become a single unit again.

Well, you can chose to freeze but why would you?

[rokapoke]

1 minute ago, Kurrilino said:

Maybe you got the coherency wrong here.

In a battle a unit can split, if pile in forces you to do so. But right after battle the unit has to become a single unit again.

Well, you can chose to freeze but why would you?

No move action (including regular movement, running, charging, and piling in) can end without maintaining coherency. You can split a unit through removal of casualties, but can only move (including pile-ins) if doing so regains coherency. See the FAQ.

[Spinsane]

3 hours ago, Kurrilino said:

In a battle a unit can split, if pile in forces you to do so. But right after battle the unit has to become a single unit again.

This is definitely wrong. You cannot voluntarily, except through casualty removal, split a unit.

Per the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Rulebook (page 1):

Quote

A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a single group of models, with all models within 1" of at least one other model from their unit.

Per the Warhammer Age of Sigmar: The Rules FAQ (pages 1 and 4):

Quote

Q: Must a unit finish any move – including, for example, pile-in moves – as a single group?

A: Yes.

and

Quote

Q: What happens when a unit that has been split into two groups because of casualties piles in?

A: The unit must finish the pile-in move as a single group. If this is impossible for any reason, no models from the unit can pile in.

[Grimma]

...

[swarmofseals]

I may be misinterpreting the question, but what you are suggesting seems a bit bizarre to me. You would need to be using some abilities that circumvent the usual movement rules in order to create this situation. You have to end any non-charge move at least 3" away from the enemy. If you charge, at least one model from your charging unit has to end up within 1/2" of the enemy. I'm not seeing how you end up with multiple units in that <3" but >1/2" range on opposite sides of a single enemy unit without some pretty serious shenanigans. The most "natural" (IE: not using special rules that somehow circumvent normal movement restrictions) way of doing it would be to charge the enemy unit on both sides and then remove casualties from the front of your units to create that 2-2 1/2" gap, which is quite a bit of work. 

 

If you did manage to create this scenario, you would likely end up with a situation where the enemy unit would have to either retreat or pile in in such a way that at least some models would be stranded in the middle and unable to fight. You'd definitely be able to bring more models into this combat than your opponent likely would. However, I doubt that this advantage would be significantly more pronounced than a conventional flank or envelopment where you are simply hitting a unit on opposite sides and concentrating your models more closely than your opponent can. The added utility of creating that little gap wouldn't really accomplish anything that this type of flank wouldn't (unless perhaps you have weapons with 3" range).

[Mayple]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

I may be misinterpreting the question, but what you are suggesting seems a bit bizarre to me. You would need to be using some abilities that circumvent the usual movement rules in order to create this situation. You have to end any non-charge move at least 3" away from the enemy. If you charge, at least one model from your charging unit has to end up within 1/2" of the enemy. I'm not seeing how you end up with multiple units in that <3" but >1/2" range on opposite sides of a single enemy unit without some pretty serious shenanigans. The most "natural" (IE: not using special rules that somehow circumvent normal movement restrictions) way of doing it would be to charge the enemy unit on both sides and then remove casualties from the front of your units to create that 2-2 1/2" gap, which is quite a bit of work. 

 

If you did manage to create this scenario, you would likely end up with a situation where the enemy unit would have to either retreat or pile in in such a way that at least some models would be stranded in the middle and unable to fight. You'd definitely be able to bring more models into this combat than your opponent likely would. However, I doubt that this advantage would be significantly more pronounced than a conventional flank or envelopment where you are simply hitting a unit on opposite sides and concentrating your models more closely than your opponent can. The added utility of creating that little gap wouldn't really accomplish anything that this type of flank wouldn't (unless perhaps you have weapons with 3" range).

That is an excellent point. I'll have to go back to the drawing board on how to accomplish such a positioning of my units for the purpose of this flanking, but I doubt I'll find anything beyond your suggestion of removing casualties from the front. Which, as you said, is a lot of work. It'd only (potentially) be worth it then if it was a response to being caught out of position. A reactive move, as opposed to the more offensive, calculated approach I was looking for - Although it could also work as a "If he ends up killing a bunch of my dudes after I've attacked, I will remove them in such a way that I can accomplish a freeze" If you do go for a regular hit-them-from-both sides move. A plan C to the plan A sort of thing. 

That being said, you could always kill your own models to accomplish the freeze (if you -really- wanted to). Not a mechanic I've thought much about, but off the top of my head; Sacrificing one or two dark elf chaff models with two darkling coven sorceress' (who's inclusion in the army serves other purposes beyond this particular maneuver, I'd hope) --> Doesn't prevent a pile in, but it should put our own lines at a number advantage. Sacrifice a few to save the many sort of dealio. 

The sorceress needs to be within 3' of the sacrificed model though, so probably not the best way to go about it. It's the only sacrifice ability I can think of right now. 

Also, if the enemy unit is compressed (touching base to base with eachother), the freezing maneuver won't accomplish much at all. 


(And yes, I realize the whole freezing thing is -highly- situational, but that's all the more reason to know how it works beforehand )