AoS: Pile in

[The Sun King]

"Step 1: When you pile in, you may move each model in the unit up to 3" TOWARDS [my emphasis] the closest enemy model."

What do towards mean in this context? Do the model have to move in a straight line or can it diverge from its course in order to get around stuff that is in the way (like other friendly models)?

 

[Tawg]

I am in favor of moving around. If a unit comes to the point where there is no space to make forward progress, then the models still not within range of their weapons would seek to round about and engage the opponent. Of course this will change as the fight does, with casualties and such although it's entirely possible you will be removing casualties from the rear in the first place.

Alternatively you may remove casualties from closer to a 2nd enemy unit to deny them an attack in a given round. Although, how do you feel about that? Perhaps you can make it another thread if you continue this one-off questions like this. But otherwise, feel free to expand upon the topic here, I'll respond in more depth if that's the case.

At any rate, I believe you can "pile in" around models. This is mostly a preference based idea because I dislike the notion of strict rules, as then you have players who don't understand/fully play by the rules and it's like tying your hands against them to follow rules that aren't there. However I would agree if my opponent wanted to play the other way. I just think moving the 3" in any how is better. That's how I play 40k as well, though I don't know if anyone would argue with that, as far as I know it's legit.

 

[The Sun King]

Thanks @Tawg but I was more looking for a Rules as Written answer I looked up the word here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toward and 'towards' translates to 'in the direction of'. This might support the notion that you can go around obstacles since you are still going in the relative direction of your goal.

 

[Tawg]

Thanks @Tawg but I was more looking for a Rules as Written answer I looked up the word here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toward and 'towards' translates to 'in the direction of'. This might support the notion that you can go around obstacles since you are still going in the relative direction of your goal.

Ok.. and the second definition is

"2
a : along a course leading to <a long stride toward disarmament>"

So how do you determine which definition is "correct"? Because "Raw" if you want to pretend there is such a thing, is debatable when there are not established rules for exact definition of words such as this. Must we always apply the first applicable definition for Raw? Where in the rules does it suggest that is the case, or anywhere in English does it define that words default to certain definitions in a strict order? (Context is our only clue often, and there is nothing to specify "Directly towards" or the likes)

My suggestion of playing is entirely as written. The problem is the other option is also entirely as written. And we can only venture a guess as to their official "intention". But to say one definition of the word is the correct and ONLY way to read that rule is to impose restrictions on language or their rules writing that simply do not exist.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but I very much dislike the notion that there are absolute "Raw interpretations" when the meanings of sentences are NOT explicitly defined in a single way. If you took that sentence to a court room and we both presented our logic for how to define Towards, neither of us would win.

It is simply a rule you have to discuss with your opponent if you want it to be that technical. Failing that, defaulting to the more loose definition guarantees you won't be disappointed or upset when another player isn't following "Your RAW" of the sentence. And likewise, as I said, if someone wishes to impose on this sentence the sense that it is ONLY allowed to move "Directly towards" then you can, as a reasonable and intelligent player, agree to a more strict definition for the game you are playing. Likewise play will more than likely be defined in advance for any tournament style setting, as they more than likely will seek to minimize disagreements in advance.

If you are looking for one answer, ask GW. And I can all but be certain they will deflect the question or give you a non-specific answer. Because there is not a specific and singular way to play that sentence.

 

[The Sun King]

Hey Tawg, why the rant? I don't see how what I wrote could be offensive or insulting. I thanked you for your answer and even did a little emoticon so as not to be dismissive of your help. I accept that you dislike RAW but I'm not sure how the rant gets me closer to an answer? It's not like I stop dead my tracks if I encounter a rule that can be interpreted in different ways. I keep playing, most often using the interpretation that benefits my opponent, and then afterwards I try to find an answer.

Going back to the question I don't see why: "2
a: along a course leading to <a long stride toward disarmament>" is more in favor of a direct line? A course does not have to be straight, to my knowledge.

 

[Tawg]

Hey Tawg, why the rant? I don't see how what I wrote could be offensive or insulting. I thanked you for your answer and even did a little emoticon so as not to be dismissive of your help. I accept that you dislike RAW but I'm not sure how the rant gets me closer to an answer? It's not like I stop dead my tracks if I encounter a rule that can be interpreted in different ways. I keep playing, most often using the interpretation that benefits my opponent, and then afterwards I try to find an answer.

Going back to the question I don't see why: "2
a: along a course leading to <a long stride toward disarmament>" is more in favor of a direct line? A course does not have to be straight, to my knowledge.

I wasn't offended, at least not directly by anything you said.

The notion of supporting rules on the basis of "Raw" is what irks me, almost exclusively in regards to GW (Who are renown, or perhaps infamous more, for their entirely shoddy rules writing); It's often just an excuse for people to pretend the rules support their statement because they refuse to accept alternatives, when perfectly viable alternatives are free to be interpreted from the same sentence. That is the only thing that offends me.

And I was less trying to rant about it in general than simply point out that the sentence provided in the rules, quoted by you, does not have an answer. There is not a solid way to determine what that sentence implies, because GW does not declare definitive rules else where that mandate one way or the other. The only rule elsewhere in the 4-pages is the fact that units can not elect to move out of their 1" cohesion by choice.

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. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must reform the next time that it moves.

As for definition 2, I was supporting the opposite of direct lines. I do not believe that direct lines are correct. And nothing of what is written implies that. It is only by implying the meaning of straight lines from the fact that it said "Towards" that anyone can find that.

I'm not trying to attack or rant, but the notion of Raw just supports arguments on the basis of misunderstanding when people don't look at things the same, often by (mis)use of English.

The only thing I can tell you for certain is you can't move away from your opponent. If you want a rules answer, that is the best I can offer.

 

[The Sun King]

@Tawg of course there is problems with RAW, but if you dislike the concept then why comment? I'm glad that we agree that there is no support for direct lines, this means I have been playing it the right way.

 

[Alabaster427]

I've played that the models can move around. Obviously, for some models, the shortest distance to battle is a straight line, but for others it is not. they aren't just going to stand around and not join because they couldn't move in a straight line, but as long as they only move 3" max and are moving towards their enemy, then it doesn't really seem to matter.

 

[The Sun King]

Agreed.

 

[Tawg]

@Tawg of course there is problems with RAW, but if you dislike the concept then why comment? I'm glad that we agree that there is no support for direct lines, this means I have been playing it the right way.

The premise of your original question was not "How does this work RAW". Although re-reading it, it could be fairly clearly assessed as you asking for what would be considered "RAW". So I answered your question, I just asserted that it was my preference. And while you acknowledged and thanked me for my reply, you made the statement that you were looking for an answer that is as written, rather, presumably, than my answer. I assumed this meant you supported direct lines, as you had not presented a solid stance as of yet, which I believe then caused confusion between my second post and your third. Because we were both suggesting that moving around any obstacle was correct, and assuming the other was in favor of direct lines. Which makes both of us questioning the 2nd definition more understandable.

I merely added a bit more lengthy comment about how the definition of the word itself can still be taken in more than one way, because it is not clear even looking at it. And explained that I don't believe attempting to explain things strictly by what is written can be achieved in many cases. Sometimes English simply isn't used correctly enough and it leaves more than one possibility open, which would (In a wishful world) be what FAQs/Erratas would be for.

It's just that the "RAW" idea is not flawed in execution as much as in ideals IMO. It's attempting to create a binding ruling that is "Supreme" over all others. But the goal shouldn't be to bind, but to play and understand the game. I mean, with tournaments/game-stores having agreed on rules that everyone understands is clearly great, but it shouldn't stop people from disobeying rules that clearly make no sense. (An example from 40k would be that a Necron Praetorian unit can take a transport, but are a Jump Unit, which are not allowed in transports. RAW says they can take the transport but never get in the transport. That is clearly non-sense.) So I just dislike very strongly the idea that one way to read the rules is correct.

But I like to understand, and debating or disagreeing over rules only strengthens arguments, and potentially illuminates points of fact that lead to a more concise way to see the rules. Some games don't need as much debate (M:tG, Warmahordes often is fairly clear, etc.), but I think it's always a worthwhile venture. I just don't support the notion that a single way to play the game is the only way to play it.

Plus we simply misunderstood each others stance on the subject, when actually we agree. But, again, if someone insisted that it could only be in direct lines, and that we both agreed to play in such a way, I would not argue with that. And I don't think the rules are concise enough to say that they are incorrect. So I say mine is preference, but it is also "RAW", as "RAW" as the alternative may be.

 

[The Sun King]

@Tawg Good reply! I think you hit the nail with most of what you said