Align Moves and Issues with it

[Fronx]

I see some issues with align moves.


1) Align move might cause opponent to be removed from the Objective Token or other Enemy Unit (Exploit)


With current rules, holding an Objective Token does not count as reason not to move non-active players Unit to match 50% align, if the active players Unit cannot do it due to Terrain. If the other end of the Unit is touching the Objective Token, Unit could become disconnected from the Token due to aligning to minimum of 50%.

Sounds unfair, and I am planning on house ruling this that in addition to Terrain causing aligning being less than 50%, alinging move must not remove non-active players Unit from an Objective Token (Thus causing situation where aligning can be less than 50%). Active players Unit can and will be moved to get that 50% alinging even if the unit is in Objective Token, as he is the one initiating such move.

In this scenario, Objective Token could also be other (Enemy) Unit. Should 50% minimum align rule allow other Units to become unengaged with each other? (Doesn't sound right).


2) Small/Single Unit Aligning with Large Tray is not described well in Rule book (Rule Confusion)

Small Tray fits Large Trays faces in quite many ways, is the positioning totally free? Are all above pictured Charge moves / alignments legal? What happens if you poorly position small unit to an Enemy Unit (bottom most grey unit in picture) and then your Large Tray Unit would like to Charge from the bottom direction the enemy, but there is less than 50% connection available (but would be if the small unit is moved a bit along the aligning move). Should other (non-attacking, non-target) Units also be moved to ensure most Units get at least 50% engagement after a Charge?

Current rules say, that only target and attacking can move, even though here it would make sense to allow that single unit being moved also to accommodate room for Units.

3) You cannot rotate facing if more than one enemy connected, even if they are on same facing (Strange)

Current rules state, that Unit can only change facing, if only 1 Enemy Unit connected. I do not see reason, why Unit could not change Facing, if those Enemy Units are on one same facing. However, this is how rules are written currently, so going to obey them, as this is marginal issue.


4) Charge can engage three or more (Interesting)

Following move is legal by current rules if the target was middle small unit. But these could be claraified in Rules, as they cause less than 50% alignings. Note that there could even be red units in left and right side of the Charging Grey unit. What would happen if the middle unit is destroyed? Is there re-aligning move (not by the Rules at the moment).

[Fronx]

For part 4, there is however contradicting rule in Rule book page 18: "The LoS Arc of the target unit must have space for the attacker's tray to fit [...]. Meaning that if there is another unit engaged center-to-center in the same LoS Arc it is preventing Charge [...]. Note that this also means that a unit can never have more than 2 enemy units engaging it from the same side". This sounds that does not consider Single Unit Small Trays, sounding more like an error in the Rule book as it is stated as a Note, not as a rule. Also, this is in part witch is describing target of Charge, while this (pictured in above image 4) happens to the charging Unit, not to the target of the charge.

Small Trays could fit into one Large Tray so, that 3 are in same flank. One in the middle, and two with 50% alignment, as there is no rule in the Rule book forbidding Small Tray Units becoming 50% aligned with a Large Tray Unit (it is just isn't clear in the Rule book, from which Unit the 50% rule must be obeyed from, attacker or defender, when the Trays are different size?). Can a Small Tray Unit align with enemy so, that it is 100% connected to the enemy, but the centers are not touching? (being in either end of the trays length)?



The interaction between Small Trays, Cavalry Trays and Large Trays does not seem to be mentioned in the Rule book, even though they can cause difficult interpretations of the rules when aligning between them.
There could be more clarification also, how aligning moves should be handled when there are multiple units involved.

[SeanApDaniel]

Answers: 1.yes you would force enemy to shift off the objective.
2. How I see it. What you show is correct. Centre to his centre or as you show on the corners. Also on the flanks you would go either right or left side as to place all you unit on or as you did. Nice to see you thinking ahead.
3.Yes you can change facing. Page 17 under Melee Attacks. In bold. A UNIT ENGAGED FROM MULTIPLE SIDES MAY NOT CHAGE ITS FACING. note it said MULTIPLE SIDES not Multiple units.
4. 4 is interesting. You would had had to charge at just the right angle to have struck the centre target. Note the rule book on stating you can not have more than two enemy unit per side. TAKE that rule as is. You would have to shift due to that rule. You could not centre so as to contact 3 units.

[Fronx]

Responses to SeanApDaniel:

1. But what if instead of an objective, the defender was next to another enemy unit (in the image, blue token is other grey unit instead)? Would this cause defender to become unengaged with this "idle" enemy (not participating in this Charge)? Unit as defender must move to 50% align with the attacker, when atttacker itself cannot align due to terrain, so rules would kind of say yes (Strange).


2. We agree on this part, so nothing to comment more.


3. Disagree stronly, as rules state in page 17:

"When a unit performs a Melee Attack, and it is engaged with
only 1 enemy unit, it may first choose to change its facing so
that it is facing said enemy head-on (in the case of an enemy being
in its Flank or Rear). A unit engaged from multiple sides may not
change its facing. The enemy has prevented them from doing
so!"

I do think that the rule book is confusing though, as the ending of that quote gives then contradicting comment about multiple sides (that would be unneccesary comment, due to already in the beginning stating "1 enemy unit". Also images in that page paint a picture about enemies being in differet sides. But, the rule book says that bolded red part: only 1 enemy unit, so I don't see any option but to follow that rule as it is quite clearly stated. Must be error in the rule book, as everything else in the page hints that it is related to sides, not to amount! (Rule book error?)


4. Indeed, there is a note about 2 Units only. Even if a note, it is in the rule book, so I'll start following that (until this is clarified in errata or in new version of a rule book). Again, Small Tray Units make this a bit silly. Single Tray Unit can take and block one side of a Large Tray Unit, if it is aligned in center, as in same page (18) this is said:

"The LoS Arc of the target unit must have space for the
attacker’s tray to fit (see Determine Line of Sight Arc, below).
Meaning that if there is another unit engaged center-to-center
in the same LoS Arc, it is preventing the charge (see Align with
Enemy, below). Note that this also means that a unit can never
have more than 2 enemy units engaging it from the same side
(Front/Flank/Rear)"

So if there is even a Small Tray Unit engaged center to center, you cannot charge with another unit to same side, even if it is Small Tray Unit and would fit (Strange).

These small things make me believe, that the Rule book was written without considering Small Tray Units.

[Starkplayer1]

I partly disagree with point 2.). As I understood the rules so far, the alignment is seen from the point of view of the defender. So the grey small unit may not stand as shown in the figure except in the bottom. But if the small unit was attacked by the large one, it could result in the unit standing as pictured, so a second large unit could attack the small one.

For situations 1, 3 and 4 I'd also like to have an official errata.

[Fronx]

I partly disagree with point 2.). As I understood the rules so far, the alignment is seen from the point of view of the defender. So the grey small unit may not stand as shown in the figure except in the bottom. But if the small unit was attacked by the large one, it could result in the unit standing as pictured, so a second large unit could attack the small one.

For situations 1, 3 and 4 I'd also like to have an official errata.

Thanks, that point-of-view I was not thinking about! It sounds foolish that a small unit only partly engages with the enemy: the unit is small, it shouldn't do it. But, as I and you mentioned earlier questions remain that would be nice to get clarified by errata.

So from this, rules would mean that:
Small Unit can totally block a side (=facing) of a unit if placed to center-to-center (Sounds strange that one small unit can do it for the whole units one facing).
Large unit could contact small unit with just 50% aligning. (Why not, but a bit funny).
A lot depends on the whom is attacker and whom is defender, for certain alignings to be possible (Inconsistent, if the Units are exactly the same, but the acual engagement result is different depending on role, whom is attacking and whom defending in Charge).



In attached image in this message, the yellow crossed positions are illegal if caused by the Charge of grey player, but are legal if caused by Charge of red player. (Excluding the fact that likely only 2 units are allowed per side, so at least one of the yellow crossed units should not be there even in that case) (?)

[Starkplayer1]

Yes, that is exactly how I interpreted the rules so far. The implications are quite funny as you said.

But while the rulebook clearly says that 100% alignment means center to center (p. 17 and 18), it does not clearly say in those paragraphs from whose point of view 50% are measured. For units with different base size (or even same base size but attacking the shorter flank) this leaves both interpretations valid, I think. I would appreciate an errata or FAQ on this.

[SeanApDaniel]

Responses to SeanApDaniel:


3. Disagree stronly, as rules state in page 17:

"When a unit performs a Melee Attack, and it is engaged with
only 1 enemy unit, it may first choose to change its facing so
that it is facing said enemy head-on (in the case of an enemy being
in its Flank or Rear). A unit engaged from multiple sides may not
change its facing. The enemy has prevented them from doing
so!"

I do think that the rule book is confusing though, as the ending of that quote gives then contradicting comment about multiple sides (that would be unneccesary comment, due to already in the beginning stating "1 enemy unit". Also images in that page paint a picture about enemies being in differet sides. But, the rule book says that bolded red part: only 1 enemy unit, so I don't see any option but to follow that rule as it is quite clearly stated. Must be error in the rule book, as everything else in the page hints that it is related to sides, not to amount! (Rule book error?)s.

I see your point. That may be true, but if it is.. the the part about being engaged on multiple sides would be redundant.

Ok

[Lone Pathfinder]

Once a unit has been engaged centre to centre it can't be charged again in the same arc. It is quite clear on that. If the engagement rules were changed to allow a minimum of 50% overlap, then these questions would go away.

My house rules, especially when teaching new players, with a caviat - some changes apply in tourneys or other hard core players - that I don't go into due to people saying: "That didn't make sense!", and I have no answer because I agree

But current rules do indicate clipping allowed in some circumstances, but not others. In all cases, maximum 2 units per "arc", only one unit if it is centre to centre.
(as there is currently no army that can field more than 2 individual unit's trays, trying to fit 3 is irrelevant until the giants cross the wall).

[Fronx]

But current rules do indicate clipping allowed in some circumstances, but not others. In all cases, maximum 2 units per "arc", only one unit if it is centre to centre.
(as there is currently no army that can field more than 2 individual unit's trays, trying to fit 3 is irrelevant until the giants cross the wall).

See image above (number 4). If there is a Small Unit Tray in the middle of two other trays, then fitting 3 could be possible already, if enemy plans to charge that middle Small Tray Unit with center-to-center (connecting with the Units next to it on both sides as Small Tray is .. small). In the image "problem" can be solved by alignign with only two, but what if there were terrain items or other units that would prevent that?

Also, the Giants are here quite soon.

[Fronx]

Some issues noted here (and the redundancy in the facing change rule) was not clarified with the FAQ / errata / rule book update.

E.g. black bolded part is redundant, due to red bolded part:
"When a unit performs a Melee Attack, and it is engaged with
only 1 enemy unit, it may first choose to change its facing so
that it is facing said enemy head-on (in the case of an enemy being
in its Flank or Rear). A unit engaged from multiple sides may not
change its facing. The enemy has prevented them from doing
so!"


Also, the image in the end of the page 17 (last image example about Berserkers) is contradicting to normal understanding of pivoting rules: there is now two separate rules for pivoting when charging and then when changing facing: In charge you could pivot so that you are on top of enemy, until eventually after aligning move there is on overlapping. In the facing change image, it is said that the Berserkers cannot pivot, even though if following same rules as in charge it could pivot to face one of the enemies (IF the rule about "only 1 enemy unit" would not exist. Due to that rule (bold red above), this whole pivot thing in page 17 is moot point! No need to think about pivoting rules, as more than one enemy connected.).

As the rule about "only 1 enemy unit" exists, the whole part is too excessively redundant: Berserker cannot change facing due to rule book saying "only 1 unit". Pivoting comment just confuses reader.

[Fronx]

I have reformatted these with the current FAQ and errata information, and some things are still a bit open in my mind after discussion:


1) Align move can cause defender to be removed from the Objective Token, but what if there is second unit involved?


If the side having objective token had additionally other Enemy Unit (Additional grey Unit engaged with left side of the red Unit in above image), apparently then the Red Unit would remain on the objective token according to rules (as it cannot become unengaged)?


2) Small/Single Unit Aligning with Large Tray is not described well in Rule book (Rule Confusion)

Can Small Unit Tray connect to left and/or right side of a flank of a Large Unit Tray? Are all above pictured Charge moves / alignments legal? Does Small Unit Tray connected Center-to-center prevent any other (even other Small Unit Tray units) from attacking that same flank? What if those already were there, before Charging center-to-center?

Note that these situations can happen from two various methods, either one being originally attacker / defender in the images..

Currently rules clearly state, that center-to-center connection prevents anything else from coming to that flank (even if it is Small Tray Unit), but what if there already were 2 Units there (on left and right), but the center was free? There is no clear indication, how Small Unit Trays are "50% aligned" with Large Units, and/or does 100% aligning have to be center-to-center aligning or could Small Tray Unit connect to left or right side of a facing, being itself 100% engaged (but Large Tray cannot, being larger)?


3) You cannot rotate facing if more than one enemy connected, even if they are on same facing (Rule redundancy)

Current rules state, that Unit can only change facing, if only 1 Enemy Unit connected."When a unit performs a Melee Attack, and it is engaged with
only 1 enemy unit, it may first choose to change its facing so
that it is facing said enemy head-on (in the case of an enemy being
in its Flank or Rear). A unit engaged from multiple sides may not
change its facing. The enemy has prevented them from doing
so!"

Blue text is redundant and confusing, as above red text already covers this (and more).


4) Charge could engage three or more due to Small Trays, but rules hint that this is not allowed

This is not clearly stated in the rule book, if this is legal. Legal is center-to-center aligning with attacked and defender (target being the middle Small Tray Unit), but there is a part on the rule book which notes that only 2 can be in one facing. So which is it?

The LoS Arc of the target unit must have space for the
attacker’s tray to fit (see Determine Line of Sight Arc, below).
Meaning that if there is another unit engaged center-to-center
in the same LoS Arc, it is preventing the charge (see Align with
Enemy, below). Note that this also means that a unit can never
have more than 2 enemy units engaging it from the same side.

[Lone Pathfinder]

1.- You use the term "engage" with the objective. The book uses the term "claim" the objective. So I think you have the two words confused and are using the term "engaged" to claim your desired outcome. Since the unit according to the book is not engaged with the objective, but merely claims the objective, it can be pulled off said objective to align with 50% of the attacking force.

2.- There isn't really any confusion. You're asking if there should be different rules for small trays vs large trays. I don't think that will happen soon because it would make the game more complex. Infantry, cavalry, individuals, siege-engines... etc. All the charges you have with black arrows are legal. The top one can only officially engage with one of the two larger trays, but if they are next to each other they can be arranged as you indicated.

3.- You are correct, the red text should be changed to "unit(s) from one side" or the blue text should read: "A unit engaged by multiple units may not change its facing. The enemy has prevented them from doing so!"

4.- "When a unit performs a Charge action, it must first declare a valid target for its charge." You cannot choose multiple targets to charge. This reverts back to point 2? In this case, which-ever unit the charger is engaging could move forward by 5mm (half the width of your index finger). Or, if the target has claimed an objective, then maybe the other 2 could move back 5mm, or even move the claimed objective with the unit. Not actual movement, but more a clear indication of which unit is actually engaged. Once disengaged, they could theoretically be moved back.

[Fronx]

1. I think you didn't read my latest post correctly, I do not mix up engagement and claiming. But I am puzzled if indeed it behaves differently if there is just one enemy VS two enemies. It is true that this one item is a bit of a crusade I have against the ruling We can agree to disagree.


2. Good, if there is no confusion to you, I'll try to rephrase my questions, assuming the rules for Small Trays and Large Trays are exactly the same:
- Rule book does not define, which units point of view the 50% aligning happens (defender or attacker), as it behaves differently in Small VS Large interactions. Could you point to that part of rule book, as it is clear?
- Rule book does not define, how 100% aligning happens between large tray and small tray (small could be 100% aligned with large even when not center-to-center), does it have to be center-to-center? Could you point to that part of rule book, as it is clear?
- Why rule book notes that only 2 can be on a flank, while you could quite easily cause 3 on a flank if at least one small is involved (as either defender over time, or attacker in one Charge)? Is it a (erroneous) note, or an actual ruling to follow (making image 4 charge illegal)?


3. I agree, or I would prefer the blue text gone: sometimes more explanation is bad (like my posts, I assume they are hard to follow as I write too much =)


4. I'm not expecting to charge multiple targets, but just pointing out the clear situations where one could (when charging one unit) become connected with 3 units in same facing in one charge. (And it is possible other way also: one unit could be charged so, that eventually it has 3 Units on one facing). I could have written it more clearly, sorry about that. As there is a note in rule book stating that only 2 can be at one face, that charge would suddenly become illegal.

That 5mm rule would be a house rule (nothing like that exists in rule book). I would like to have official ruling. Also pointing to your answer number 2: this issue mentioned in point 4 is caused by rule book not considering Small Trays at all, but you claim there is nothing to be clarified? You contradict yourself by having to come up house ruling for point 4, caused by things mentioned in point 2 (Small Tray interactions not considered in rule book) =)

[Fronx]

Point 1 has been now confirmed in this post for the two enemy units situation: http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...t-is-attacking
It was somewhat clear (though clearly, someone else saw it as an issue to ask about!). I wanted to be 100% sure due to Objective Token debate above.

Other points still seem to remain a bit unclear:

2. Small Trays to Large Trays and Large Trays to Small trays alinging interactions (e.g. from which Tray the 50% is checked).

3. Facing change rule confusion (why written the way it is written, causing confusion?)

4. Is 2 units max per one flank a rule (even though 3 is easy to get with help of Small Trays), or (erroneous) note (as it says, "note" in Rule book)?

[Fronx]

I have dug out the answers myself to these.

1. resolved in http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...t-is-attacking

2. Not officially resolved, but deducted from the rule book. The rule book states the 50% is looked from the enemy tray (the key is "to leave room for another unit to charge in", so should be quite clear for Large Trays and both Small Trays. This was discussed as a side topic on some other topic in this forum.

3. resolved in http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...477#post872477

4. 2 units max per one flank indeed seems to be a rule (even though no official word still).

[Neo CMON]

Answers:

1) yes, during alignment, the defender can be removed from an objective token.
If it was already engaged, it must still re-align if possible, but it cannot disengage.

2) Here is a picture of all the ways a small unit tray can align once engaged:
(so in the second picture you showed, the text is correct: upper alignment is ok, bottom alignment is illegal)


3) A unit cannot "shift/change facing" when engaged by more than one enemy unit. (even if both are on the same side of your unit)

4) you cannot declare a charge against multiple enemies. consequently you cannot engage more than one enemy at once.
Also, all trays must be aligned 50% or 100% so both of the large red trays in question are not properly aligned.

[Fronx]

Thanks for the reply! Point 4 answers few other question also I had.


I would like to point out, that at least I was able to read this below quoted rule book part so, that it allows unit to become engaged with other enemies in one charge (as long as it becomes in contact with the target and of course targets only the target of the charge with the attack). I think only thing that I could (now) see is, that it is "an enemy unit" not plural "enemy units":

Page 15, • Moving and Other Units •,
• A unit may never end a move within 1” of an enemy unit,
unless that move would bring it into contact with the target
of its Charge.

If I may suggest, small clarification there could help to avoid reading it wrong (this is just a suggestion, better formulations can be surely found):

A unit may never end a move within 1” of an enemy unit,
unless that move would bring it into contact with the target
of its Charge (engaging only these two units)



Thank you, now I can play the game (a bit more) correctly.

[TheRedGod]

maybe clarification be put into page 7 , Common Terms: "engaged"

Currently : "A unit is engaged when it is in contact with one ormore enemy units."

Maybe change to : "A unit becomes engaged when it either successfully charges it's target, or is the target of a successful charge"

[TheGrinningWolf]

maybe clarification be put into page 7 , Common Terms: "engaged"

Currently : "A unit is engaged when it is in contact with one ormore enemy units."

Maybe change to : "A unit becomes engaged when it either successfully charges it's target, or is the target of a successful charge"

Agreed. I suggested the exact same thing in other post of mine.

T W

See below for the post, just for poops and giggles LOL


http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/...320#post872320