Game Theory - Proud Nails - The Double Lock in AoS

In this Game Theory Design video, I break down what a Proud Nail is and I talk about one that bothers me in Age of Sigmar, the Double Lock. This is a nuanced rule consequence during pile-in, but one that can cause some gotchas for newer players and has a super easy fix. It's time to dig into the minutiae. Hope you enjoy!

Twitter: @warhammerweekly

[fulcrum]

This is an interesting psychological phenomenon which can be observed in all aspects of life, politics, etc.: The more perfect and sophisticated something is, the more aggravating even the smallest flaws and imperfections become. Or in other words: The more perfect something is, the more dissatisfied we are with it. It's crazy. This is why many people are blathering about how everything was better in days past, until you aks them to name a specific year or something similar, which is where anyone with functioning mental capabilities will notice the foolishness of any such claim.

[meanderingshade]

I agree with everything you said about this issue and the way it could have been rectified properly, bar one small point.
I don't think it is that rare an occurrence. I've probably only had somewhere in the region of 20 games of AoS 2.0 since release. And I'm pretty sure it hasn't come up in only a handful of them.
I'm mainly running Nurgle Daemons army at the moment (until I get my Mortals painted and mostly retire the Daemons to summoning pool) and by their very nature they are a defensible army.
So getting double-locked or sitting in a mid-field bottleneck still works out very well for me. But seeing opponents unhappy or not enjoying the game because their fast/aggressive forces just get stuck in a queue, makes me feel for them.
I think I may suggest your solution as a House Rule with my personal gaming group.

[azoxystrobin]

We can _tell_ that you are very passionate about this Vince !
Aren't there as many people that will say that the double locking isn't a bug, but a feature? Tom for instance?
Surely it's deep tactics to "outthink" ones opponent in the micromanagement phase of piling in?

Nah, I kid :D
I agree with you on principal, although I think that the errata/FAQ, was simply the result of mathematical simplicity, rather than them not taking into consideration the unexpected consequences ; If a model is equidistant to two enemy models, you still apply the rule, because it is the only rule and that rule says can't move further away.

Now when three models are touching, there is no doubt that there's a lock on.
But when there are models in between and an opponent wants to get picky with distances, well some of us have played Warmachine, and know how to be picky with distances.
The thing is that will lead to negative play experiences, so even though I think a double lock could be interesting in some cases, it seems that it would be simpler, more fluid and more friendly if we didn't have to go down that route of nitpicking.

Note that it's kinda funny that where a model can go during piling in is on a model basis but the actual permission to pile in is on a unit basis. Then again same question is it a bug or a feature?

Edited to remove novella length comment. I gotta lrn2 make videos.
Anyway nice vid, moar plz.

[padrespeaks]

I know zero about AoS except I have a box of Kharadrons still in the box. Good video! Learned a lot.

[mooncabbagere]

I do not play AoS, but would it not be simpler to just replace the pile in rule with something like “may move up to 3” so long as it ends at least as close to a model in the enemy unit” or something?

[therustbeltblacksmith]

same thing here vince, ever since i read the faq (there's a few others, but i'll try to stay focused), it's been a splinter in my mind, i really struggle with how anyone who knows the game, at all, could've penned this conclusion. if you remove the circumstance (piling in) and substitute any other (that i'm aware of) the answer is the same, when the closest thing matters and you have 2 that are equal distances, the active player can choose. it's a couple of bad lines in a faq short of being a universal rule. if this is a proud nail, my only conclusion is that it's of a purposeful (used to tie in something else) variety, and it's for something we haven't seen yet, maybe it's something to do with slaanesh, pure speed (movement stats, run and charge, and the like) has been done to death in a conventional sense (not saying slaanesh won't get them to), but slaanesh needs to be faster then just about everyone else, certainly faster then nurgle and just giving them higher movement rates seems lazy, maybe we got this nail because bypassing it is going to be one, of their (or some others factions) defining traits, otherwise, i don't get GW's ruling, based off everything else we have to go on, but who knows (are little conversations always end the same way).

[just_gut]

I think the term you were looking for early in the video when talking about unintuitive rules interpretations to gain an advantage is Edge Shooting.

[poevids]

I think I must be missing something here, and now I'm a bit concerned that I'm piling in incorrectly. The new rule states that you can move up to 3" as long as you end up at least as close to the nearest enemy model. It doesn't say that you have to move toward the nearest model directly or by the shortest possible route. In the example that is on screen at around 24 mins, there are two models "stuck" in the back. While it is possible that the right-rear model is stuck, I'm pretty sure the left rear model can make it into combat although it may take 2 turns to do it depending on what the actual distances are. What I'd suggest doing is moving the "pointless pile-in" model directly "up". Depending on the actual distances, it could hook around and nestle in the crevice between the topmost friendly model and topmost enemy model. This will put it in range to attack and it should be at least as close to the middle enemy model as it was when it started (and I think slightly closer, actually). If this distance is >3", then it could simply move part way up, aiming to end exactly to the left of the topmost friendly model. Again, it should be just as close to the middle enemy model as it was before. In the next turn, the top enemy model should now actually be the closest enemy model, allowing you to complete the pile in move.

Again, depending on the actual distances involved the bottom-right friendly model might be able to pull off a similar sequence but I'm less confident of that as it might get stuck at a point where the middle enemy model is the closest still and it becomes impossible to move closer to the right hand enemy model while staying at least as close to the middle enemy model.

Am I missing something here? Is there another reason why these moves would not be legal?

[nicktrojano]

Thanks Vince, I haven't thought much about pile-in mechanic.
If an opponent were to try to exploit this as a tactic, can a player counter this situation by pulling casualties from the front? Wouldn't that reset the next pile-in, or maybe exit combat for a charge?

Good video! Could you explore the 'line of sight' mechanic too? I'm sometimes confused about it. Specifically: friendly units, flying models, elaborate bases, terrain, and woods, and how different situations affect shooting, charging, command abilities and magic.

[mrevox]

Your simple solution is how my group has always played. So much easier!!

[kindrik]

Would a simpler fix be to change the wording to "Each model must finish its pile-in move at least as close to the nearest enemy unit as it was at the start of the move"? Or would this have other consequences?

[jesserooney]

Wait a minute, what about if a unit wants to lock in the other unit? Imagine that Al’s unit Alpha Attacker is engaged with Debra’s unit Delta Defender, and Delta is supported by hero unit Sierra Support, which is just behind Delta. Let’s say Alpha is a powerhouse attack unit, Delta is very defensible unit, and Sierra is a weaker combat unit that buffs Delta. Alpha will be able to easily kill Sierra, but with Delta can bog down Alpha as long as Delta is supported by Sierra. Al wants to get Alpha at Sierra, but Debra wants Delta to keep Alpha pinned down while keeping Sierra out of Alpha’s reach. Debra may choose to double lock Alpha with Delta for that reason.

I understand that Al doesn’t want the double lock here, but is there a reason why we shouldn’t allow Debra the strategic decision of double locking Alpha with Delta? I very much understand how and why AOS prefers offensive armies over defensive armies, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be defensive tactics like this at all. It’s easy to imagine a horde attempting to encircle an opponent, but it is also imagine a defensive unit that looks to prevent that by having warriors smack enemies in the back as their foes try to flank their comrades.

In that context, the double lock is fun for Debra because she’s used her tactical acumen to neutralize Al’s spearhead. For Al, it’s a puzzle to be solved for next time. For what it’s worth, I think the game should encourage the creative positioning of units. Debra’s use of the double lock is exactly that.

That said, if you told me we shouldn’t have this because Debra’s tactical defense is an unintended consequences of poorly written rules and not representative of the intended rule, well that’d be a reasonable answer.

[DoomDarkness]

If your pay someone to build you a new deck and they leave multiple proud nails (this being one example of many) you basically think to yourself that they are a shit tradesman and you call them to come back and fix it.

[PannkakaMedSylt]

THIS THIS THIS omg I loved everything about AoS 2.0 untill we got this FAQ.. oh god WHY?... sure overall in the game it's a small proud nail.. but I mostly play horde armies.. and sure the game still works.. but time.. TIME.. please help me save time I can't be arsed with this FAQ ...

I really hope they go back on this and focus on making the game streamlined for speed like they talked about without sacreficing real tactical choices ofcourse! but remove uneccery time craving things like this..

I'm so tired of tring to fiddle so much with my front lines to make it effectivly move into close combat with as many models as possible.. and picking the optimal ones to remove when models die so I can pile in as many as possible.. it's not tactical.. it's just time consuming and annoying..

[needmorecowbell]

A lock makes no sense. Roman infantry formations had a built in rotation system where the soldiers in the front rank rotated out and went to the back of the formation to rest. This tactic was successful because a fresh soldier had an advantage over a fatigued opponet. This rotation was completed within melee and completed without disrupting or disording the infantry unit. This tactic also demonstrates the superiority of linear formations over non linear formations. Fatigue and cohesion is everything in close combat. Standing around for a coffee is a good thing.

[calebgoodson]

I really can't see this double lock being enforced in friendly games. It just sounds so nit-picky and...just...the opposite of fun.

[querldox]

I'm a bit exasperated that the concept of a 'lock' or 'double-lock' is even a 'thing' to be discussed. This is rule-lawyering to the extreme. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that such a fundamental component of the game (movement) can somehow be eliminated by maneuvering your pieces. The 3" rule is how AOS addresses the Zone of Control or Zone of Influence from board wargaming. It means the nearby unit cannot be ignored and exerts some influence on you within those 3". It doesn't paralyze you into indecision. You want to immobilize a unit - surround it, or implement some kind of 'awe' or 'fear' effect. Silly.

[DreadQuinn]

The actual problem here is the stupid 'range' of weapons in CC in AoS. It did not exist in WHFB and more importantly does not exist in 40K. I assume it was an attempt to replicate fighting in ranks to some degree and the bonus that spears used to get in ranks. They should just dump it and allow all models within 1 inch of an enemy to fight and all friendly models within 1 inch of the 'locked' models to fight. Just like 40K. Problem pretty much solved. The weapon 'range' thing was an unneeded complexity that still baffles me. I understand the intent, but it doesn't fit the scale of the game or battle. Fine for a skirmish game, not for this.