Charging 100% engaging 2 units simultaneously, possibly 3....
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Charging 100% engaging 2 units simultaneously, possibly 3....

  1. #1

    Default Charging 100% engaging 2 units simultaneously, possibly 3....

    Name:  Untitled.jpg
Views: 376
Size:  7.5 KB

    Unit A and B are prefectly aligned with side corners touching.

    Unit C charges on Unit A and aligns 100%.

    Unit B, as per FAQ, counts as engaged with the unit, right? FAQ states that after aligning if bases are touching they are engaged.

    If the above is correct and there was a unit D touching unit A on the other side, would 3 units be engaged? causing an override for the rule that you can not have more then 2 units engaged on the same front?
    Triple F.

    Fight F@k Fight

  2. #2

    Default

    I'm pretty sure that corners connecting does not count as touching.
    There is no rules section that confirmes that, but it would break a lot of rules interactions, so im pretty sure it's not intended to count as connected.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Failix View Post
    I'm pretty sure that corners connecting does not count as touching.
    There is no rules section that confirmes that, but it would break a lot of rules interactions, so im pretty sure it's not intended to count as connected.
    i hope so

    popped up during a game yest and felt wrong but corner touching it s still touching by logic
    Triple F.

    Fight F@k Fight

  4. #4

    Default

    1st the easy part: Rule book for what is engagement is clear:

    Page 7 of Rule book (all versions up to v1.4 at least):

    ENGAGED: A unit is engaged when it is in contact with one or more enemy units.
    UNENGAGED: A unit is unengaged when it is not in contact with any enemy units.

    As "contact" is not mentioned anywhere in the rule book as "game term", then you must go by what the English word means (e.g. like "Engaged" is a clear game term, and thus the Rule book overrules English term meaning for word "Engaged". But no such case for word "contact").

    Situation called "Corner to corner contact" is -- (duh) -- a contact, as per English language.



    But there is more on your question: "Charge can engage more than one Unit" is not well described in the Rule book, but afaik you must try to not engage initially multiple Units if possible to align so that you only engage the target (and only if that is not possible, then you start engaging multiple Units). I do hope someone corrects me if this assumption of mine is incorrect?
    This would mean that order of things is:

    - C must align to target A so, that there is no contact with B if able to, So in above image would align 50% to left as only option.
    - But if due to terrain / play area borders / other Units that 50% align would not be possible, then C can align so, that it is in contact with B also (having to follow 50% align or center-to-center align from the target's point of view).

    I do hope someone can confirm or unconfirm this latter part, on "do you have to avoid multiple contacts in Charge if able to". The first part should be quite clear RAW reading, of English word "contact".

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fronx View Post
    but afaik you must try to not engage initially multiple Units if possible to align so that you only engage the target (and only if that is not possible, then you start engaging multiple Units). I do hope someone corrects me if this assumption of mine is incorrect?

    - C must align to target A so, that there is no contact with B if able to.

    I do hope someone can confirm or unconfirm this latter part, on "do you have to avoid multiple contacts in Charge if able to".
    1.There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says or suggests this.

    2. Touching is being in contact, and thus engaged, by all definitions in the rulebook.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliser Thorne View Post
    1.There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says or suggests this.

    2. Touching is being in contact, and thus engaged, by all definitions in the rulebook.
    So As per the original post, what if a unit D was involved and also inline with unit A on its left side? would that bring Unit C engaged with 3 units on its front??? Isn't that an illegal game state??

    Could that charge be executed???
    Last edited by TrePalle; 07-05-2019 at 10:51 AM.
    What is dead may never die, but rises again Harder and Stronger

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrePalle View Post
    So As per the original post, what if a unit D was involved and also inline with unit A on its left side? would that bring Unit C engaged with 3 units on its front??? Isn't that an illegal game state??

    Could that charge be executed???
    For this, there are multitude of opinions.

    Rule book page 18, about Charge:
    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 his also means that a unit can never have more than 2 enemy units engaging it from the same side (Front/Flank/Rear)- both units engaged to 50% on the same side

    The General FAQ entry (at least v1.4):
    Q: Can I end a Charge action engaged with multiple enemies? If so, what happens?
    A: Yes. Although rare, after all alignment is completed from a successful Charge, the attacker may find its tray touching additional enemies. In such an event, the units are engaged. The attacker can still only resolve its attack against the original target, and the additional contacted enemies are not forcibly moved in any way as a result of that Charge move.


    - My interpretation is, that FAQ does not overrule anything in the Rule book (Errata would, but not Frequently Asked Questions): after Charge multiple Units could be engaged, as long as only 2 from the same side, as per still stated in the Rule book. (E.g. 3 or more is possible, as long as only 2 per side).
    - There is interpretation though, that as FAQ states above thing, FAQ would work as Errata, and thus would overrule Rule book, like was case with infamous Stark Fury: after Charge multiple Units could be engaged, even against what Rule book states about only 2 from same side. I'm not a fan of such interpretation, as FAQ should be answers to questions, not Errata to Rule book text.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alliser Thorne View Post
    1.There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says or suggests this.

    2. Touching is being in contact, and thus engaged, by all definitions in the rulebook.
    Thanks on this, as I wrote those "correct me if I'm wrong", I agree totally that there is zero evidence for "avoid multiple contact in Charge" -interpretation in the Rule book or in the FAQ: There are (what I have seen and heard) people that play / interpret like this, so it is not alone my invention (but definitely, it is invention without any rules to back up).

    So it should be ignored, sorry for bringing it up to confuse, but hopefully someone else also notices that such would be not according to rules.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bazzu View Post
    Name:  Untitled.jpg
Views: 376
Size:  7.5 KB

    Unit A and B are prefectly aligned with side corners touching.

    Unit C charges on Unit A and aligns 100%.

    Unit B, as per FAQ, counts as engaged with the unit, right? FAQ states that after aligning if bases are touching they are engaged.

    If the above is correct and there was a unit D touching unit A on the other side, would 3 units be engaged? causing an override for the rule that you can not have more then 2 units engaged on the same front?
    I am really interested in this.

    Once the attacker has chosen 100%, at one point unit B will want to align as well...woudn't that move unit C to 50% towards it since it cannot do it itself? Basically i wonder if unit C can stay aligned 100% with unit A at all. If it can stay like that, by the time unit B activates, could it choose to align on the flank?

    Currently, nothing can bring more than 2 units on one side. Should a 3rd unit end up in contact with a corner, could it allow the 3rd unit to pick a flank alignment, given that the flank/front arc split the unit precisely in 2?
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 07-05-2019 at 12:24 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakwolf View Post
    I am really interested in this.

    Once the attacker has chosen 100%, at one point unit B will want to align as well...woudn't that move unit C to 50% towards it since it cannot do it itself? Basically i wonder if unit C can stay aligned 100% with unit A at all. If it can stay like that, by the time unit B activates, could it choose to align on the flank?

    Currently, nothing can bring more than 2 units on one side. Should a 3rd unit end up in contact with a corner, could it allow the 3rd unit to pick a flank alignment, given that the flank/front arc split the unit precisely in 2?
    Good point.

    The corner-to-corner touching Units are 50%/50% Front / Flank aligned, so Attacker (of that Attack) would decide which side it is when an Attack is made as long as it would be at that point legal.

    They seem to be "Schrödinger cat's" in that sense, that even though they are engaged, it is not clear which Flank they are on, until such Unit Attacks. And then, attacker would have to (?) choose the attack to be happening on the side where there are no 2 Units already clearly engaged at that moment, and can if wants to (don't have to), re-align the Unit on that said side 50% or center-to-center as part of Melee Attacks re-align.


    Thus this exact corner-to-corner touch case about 3 Units being on the same side is not actually relevant as they can be counted as being in the Flank, if there is room in the Flank and Front combined to have just 2 on the each side. It would be still good to get clarification on above question, does the FAQ overrule the "2 units per side" rule or not (should not), as it is possible to happen with Small Tray Units without corner-to-corner touches?


    Rule book page 18 about Charge:
    Determine Line of Sight Arc: You must first determine which of the defender’s Line of Sight Arcs (see Line of Sight, pg. 14) the attacker is in. If the charge is successful, the attacker will end up contacting the enemy in whichever Line of Sight Arc it began in. If the attacker’s tray crosses into several of the defender’s Line of Sight Arcs, use the one the majority of its tray is in. In the event it is exactly 50/50 across different LoS Arcs, the attacker may choose the arc.
    (I do hate having to pick up rules from chapters that are not relevant, like in this case from Charge chapter when we are talking about (Ranged or Melee) Attack, but past experiences have taught to me that this is how the rules need to be read, and sure, it keeps it compact to not having to repeat same stuff in each chapter).

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fronx View Post

    Thus this exact corner-to-corner touch case about 3 Units being on the same side is not actually relevant as they can be counted as being in the Flank, if there is room in the Flank and Front combined to have just 2 on the each side. It would be still good to get clarification on above question, does the FAQ overrule the "2 units per side" rule or not (should not), as it is possible to happen with Small Tray Units without corner-to-corner touches?
    I think its is still relevant since the attacker at the time of contact is the charging unit and therefore its up to that player to decide on which side the 3 aligned units are at that point. Its very confusing really and I might be wrong.

    On a personal thought: I think that a unit center to center or 100% with another unit should not be able to be in contact with any other unit on that side thus eliminating the corner to corner situation even if physically toughing the opponents second unit but this is just how I would have it work.
    What is dead may never die, but rises again Harder and Stronger

  12. #12

    Default

    For sure the charge is legal.

    The alignment option is only relative to the target of the Charge during the attack.

    If i was unit C's player, i would charge but make sure i'd shift to a 50% with unit B to prevent it from aligning with flank on its own activation.

    So the corner contacts might not be relevant during unit C's turn. It charges, aligns to its target (100% or 50%) and then performs the attack. Then the turn ends.

    For whatever reason, if unit B is engaged via a corner and on its own turn, would choose to attack from the front, then unit C would be displaced to 50% as the defender must align in that case.

    On the follwing turn, any unit "engaged" via a corner could activate, perform a legal action for an engaged unit (retreat, attack), and if it chooses to attack, it could align on the flank. Should 2 other units already be engaged at the front by that time (even if via a corner), then it must choose the flank ark.
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 07-05-2019 at 02:08 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakwolf View Post
    For sure the charge is legal.

    The alignment option is only relative to the target of the Charge during the attack.

    If i was unit C's player, i would charge but make sure i'd shift to a 50% with unit B to prevent it from aligning with flank on its own activation.

    So the corner contacts might not be relevant during unit C's turn. It charges, aligns to its target (100% or 50%) and then performs the attack. Then the turn ends.

    For whatever reason, if unit B is engaged via a corner and on its own turn, would choose to attack from the front, then unit C would be displaced to 50% as the defender must align in that case.

    On the follwing turn, any unit "engaged" via a corner could activate, perform a legal action for an engaged unit (retreat, attack), and if it chooses to attack, it could align on the flank. Should 2 other units already be engaged at the front by that time (even if via a corner), then it must choose the flank ark.
    One thing to correct (I highlighted it in above quote with bold text):
    there is no MUST align. "Must align" rules are only related to Charge, but are optional when doing a Melee attack. Attacker could decide to forgo the re-align part and could attack via corner connection, without re-aligning.
    Also, I am not sure if the "defender moves in align if attacker cannot" rule applies on Melee Attack re-align, or if it only applies to Charge align?


    Rule book page 17, Melee Attack:
    The unit may then choose to shift its tray so that its tray is 100% aligned center-to-center with its enemy, or choose to move so that their trays are only 50% aligned (as to allow another friendly unit to later engage that enemy in that same Arc).

    (I find that page 17 of the Rule book has most confusing wording, as it uses in game terms out of context. like "shift" (specific game term) in above quote to describe "re-align" even though it is not a shift, and later in the same page examples "pivot" (specific game term) to describe "change of facing", even though it is not a pivot.)

  14. #14

    Default

    Ah you're probably right, i read it as if it was one or the other.

  15. #15

    Default

    Bumping this up a bit...i'd like to know how to solve these situations

  16. #16

    Default

    I m hoping that after Gencon and a deserved rest, Mr.Shinall finds some time to answer the recent posts as there are a couple of good questions.
    Triple F.

    Fight F@k Fight

  17. #17

    Default

    Bump

    happened again during this weekend tourny and we rolled a die
    Triple F.

    Fight F@k Fight

  18. #18

    Default

    It's a very interesting question, and a real problem as these cases occur time to time.
    Waiting an official answer, the community should perhaps choose a solution (to avoid rolling die like in GW games ^^).


    I have a preferencial for the "unit touched by corner is not engaged" : in this case, the charging unit have to choose betwen engage only one or the two units (with a 100 or 50% alignment). And the rule "max 2 units by side" is respected.
    Last edited by Tanghar; 09-09-2019 at 05:04 AM.

  19. #19

    Default

    When in doubt, go with the rule that is least in conflict with the rules as written (RAW).

    - Corners touching is "contact" by meaning of words in English language.
    - By rule book, "contact" is "engagement".
    - The "max 2 units on the side" is a rule written in the rule book. There is no Errata for it, and nothing in FAQ overwrites, even though "Charge engaging multiple Units" is clarified in FAQ, it does not contradict "2 Units per side" -rule, just adds more information to it.


    So for that reason, I go with the rule book interpretation, even though it causes silly issues where a Charge cannot be legal just because three Units are next to each other.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fronx View Post
    When in doubt, go with the rule that is least in conflict with the rules as written (RAW).
    So for that reason, I go with the rule book interpretation, even though it causes silly issues where a Charge cannot be legal just because three Units are next to each other.
    If contact by corner is not "engagement", there is no silly issue, even with 3 units next to each other : charging unit could only engage 1 unit (aligned 100%) or two units (aligned 50%)...
    And it's more in the "philosophy" of the rules, even if not word-for-word definition of a "contact".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->