The only rules question I can't figure out so far:

Imagine a 2x2 unit. Imagine a hero (1x1) flanks them on the back side. Imagine that the hero kills both back trays. They are now not engaged (because both back trays of the 2x2 died, reducing it to a 2x1) and close in triggers. Close in lists as a shift 1 option. The question is, if she moves forward the heroes side would be touching the back of the 2x1. If she moves sideways, heroes front side would be touching the flank of the 2x1 unit. Are both of those legal close ins? Or neither? She doesn't actively collide into, because she isn't moving into the unit. She is sliding along the side of it.

If neither is a legal close in, the hero stays unengaged at that point.

Any thoughts?

2 minutes ago, randomjoe said:

The only rules question I can't figure out so far:

Imagine a 2x2 unit. Imagine a hero (1x1) flanks them on the back side. Imagine that the hero kills both back trays. They are now not engaged (because both back trays of the 2x2 died, reducing it to a 2x1) and close in triggers. Close in lists as a shift 1 option. The question is, if she moves forward the heroes side would be touching the back of the 2x1. If she moves sideways, heroes front side would be touching the flank of the 2x1 unit. Are both of those legal close ins? Or neither? She doesn't actively collide into, because she isn't moving into the unit. She is sliding along the side of it.

If neither is a legal close in, the hero stays unengaged at that point.

Any thoughts?

Not sure I follow maybe a picture would help.

From my understanding of what your saying I believe both are legal

If the hero is facing the back edge of the unit. The unit can close in, performing a shift-1 forward, and be able to touch the front row of trays on the unit she was attacking. If she does a shift-1 to the side, she will not be engaged with that unit, so that is not a legal close-in.

But I agree that a picture would be helpful. This question brings up a bunch of other situations to my mind that I'm now curious about regarding closing in.

Can't really draw a picture.

Hero is facing unit from the side on the back row. Budgernaut your example is she is facing the rear of the unit, so closing in puts her against the back of the front row. Mine is that she is on the side, so if she closed in forward her left side would be touching the rear of the 2x1.

My question is whether that left side touch counts as a "collision" or not. Same question if she slides left (Which would put her front side against the 2x1s left side).

14 minutes ago, randomjoe said:

Can't really draw a picture.

Hero is facing unit from the side on the back row. Budgernaut your example is she is facing the rear of the unit, so closing in puts her against the back of the front row. Mine is that she is on the side, so if she closed in forward her left side would be touching the rear of the 2x1.

My question is whether that left side touch counts as a "collision" or not. Same question if she slides left (Which would put her front side against the 2x1s left side).

Oh, I see it now!

I don't have an answer for you. The Collision rules (18) indicate that touching is all that matters (even though that rule is so convoluted), so my impression is that it still collides (but remember that all effects that trigger off of collisions are ignored (17.1)).

This would only happen if both trays were removed in a single attack. I don't think either situation would allow you to close in.

36 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

I don't think either situation would allow you to close in.

What part of the rules makes you think this?

38 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

What part of the rules makes you think this?

To me it seems like neither shift would collide with the enemy unit. If you cannot collide, you cannot close in.

7 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

To me it seems like neither shift would collide with the enemy unit. If you cannot collide, you cannot close in.

Ok let me try a diagram.

12

X34

1-4 are trays of undead in a unit facing up. X is Kari facing toward the 3 tray. Kari kills 3 and 4 in combat. She can shift forward 1 to be behind he unit or sideways 1 to still be on the same side of he unit. Since a 1 shift is the length of a tray both of these place her back in contact with he unit and are legal close in moves

1 minute ago, Klaxas said:

Ok let me try a diagram.

12

X34

1-4 are trays of undead in a unit facing up. X is Kari facing toward the 3 tray. Kari kills 3 and 4 in combat. She can shift forward 1 to be behind he unit or sideways 1 to still be on the same side of he unit. Since a 1 shift is the length of a tray both of these place her back in contact with he unit and are legal close in moves

yes, you can technically choose to do either of those maneuvers though if you shifted Kari forward she would no longer gain a reroll as she would then be being flanked by the reanimates.

Just now, jek said:

yes, you can technically choose to do either of those maneuvers though if you shifted Kari forward she would no longer gain a reroll as she would then be being flanked by the reanimates.

I was clarifying the op because people were having trouble visualizing the question.

Do you still lose precise? Or do you just lose rerolls from ranks?

Well I think the way it is read that if you lose rerolls due to flank you would lose rerolls from precise as well...but I'm not sure, that is how we had been treating it...

10 minutes ago, jek said:

Well I think the way it is read that if you lose rerolls due to flank you would lose rerolls from precise as well...but I'm not sure, that is how we had been treating it...

Actually looking up flanking Kari would not be flanked. You can only flank someone with your front edge so she wouldn't be flanked and wouldn't lose rerolls

But if you are flanked you do lose precise because it adds to your number of full ranks

hmm so then Kari would not be flanking them either if she shifted forward! hmmm...

Just now, jek said:

hmm so then Kari would not be flanking them either if she shifted forward! hmmm...

True

The reason you can close in. Sideways is because the connectors would collide.

The relevant part is 41.2, which states that if neither unit has their front edge in contact, neither unit is flanking. Kari began with flanking, and if she shifts to the side she regain contact of her front edge with the flank of the enemy unit. If she shifts forward, she is still in contact but now her side is touching the enemy formation, so she does not have flanking. My thoughts then went to if she would get her rerolls in this second position. 45.3 states that Precise acts as additional ranks (it does not directly give a reroll), so anything the denies rerolls from ranks would deny Precise. Per 41.1.iii, any unit that is flanked loses these rerolls from ranks (and thus from Precise as well). However, as we said, 41.2 says that she is not flanked with side-to-back contact, so she would surprisingly get her Precise rerolls in either position. However, I would argue that shifting to the side is the superior position, as in that space the enemy has threat of 1. If she moves forwards, their threat is 2.

Edit: also of note is 41.1.i which says she should still be engaged if she doesn't move if her corner is in contact still with the enemy!

After killing the 34 trays, kari would still be engaged and still be flanking the 12 trays from the rear.

As drkpnthr mentions, even if your still corner to corner with a tray of the opposing unit, you are still counted as engaged and cannot close-in.

If corner to corner, the contact edge is counted as the one you would use if you were to "square up".

When squaring up from a corner contact, if after measuring it is concluded that two different sides are applicable, the controlling player gets to choose which side.

So for the example above Kari would still be in corner to corner contact but can decide that her front is the contact edge and apply her flanking bonuses and what not.

Unless I'm mistaken somewhere.

I'm not trying to be obtuse but where does it state that corners count?

1 hour ago, Klaxas said:

I'm not trying to be obtuse but where does it state that corners count?

I, personally, don't see it anywhere in the rules reference. There are many references to being engaged with a corner, but those all seem to assume corner-to-edge contacts. I see nothing to indicate that Kari would not close-in in this situation.

The Rules Reference actually explicitly shows that corner-to-corner doesn't count as engagement. Page 22 has an example of closing in with a unit of cavalry closing in without taking out the tray that is corner-to-corner to it.

17 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

The Rules Reference actually explicitly shows that corner-to-corner doesn't count as engagement. Page 22 has an example of closing in with a unit of cavalry closing in without taking out the tray that is corner-to-corner to it.

Ah yes, you are correct! Ive even seen this but forgotten about it

I stand corrected, engagement can occur corner-to-edge but not corner-to-corner.

I'm going to exercise my Waiqar-given right to engage in thread necromancy. Simply stated, I am not so sure about the conclusions we, as a community, have come to regarding Closing In. Fore reference, here is RR 17.1

Quote

17 Closing In

If two units are engaged and a game effect removes one or more trays from one of those units such that those units are no longer engaged, the unit that did not have any trays removed may close in.

17.1 To close in, a unit performs a speed-1 shift (?) action and must collide with the enemy unit it was most recently engaged with—the enemy unit that had one or more of its trays removed. If there is a collision with that unit, the unit squares up as normal, but any other game effects that are triggered when units collide are ignored.

• If the closing-in unit cannot collide with the enemy unit it was most recently engaged with, both units remain in the same position and are no longer engaged. Any game effects triggered when units disengage are ignored.

• The straight, speed-1 movement template moves a unit the distance of the width of a single tray. When a unit is closing in to fill the gap left by a single tray being removed, the close in results in a collision. The gap left by the tray and the distance covered by the straight, speed-1 template are identical—even though they sometimes appear not to be as a result of trays being bumped.

The community has come to the conclusion that since Closing In involves a Shift action, you can move forward or sideways if a tray has been removed. The last section of the rules I quoted above says "the close in results in a collision," so people have concluded that it works even in the following situation (as outlined above).

Front rank 1 2
Back Rank 3 4 X

Where Trays 1-4 represent a unit of Reanimates, and X represents Kari Wraithstalker, facing tray 4 in flanking position. If trays 3 and 4 are destroyed in a single attack...

Front rank 1 2
Back Rank X

...where can Kari close in? According to currently held knowledge, the following two options are available:

(a) Front rank 1 2
Back Rank X

(b) Front rank 1 2 X
Back Rank

In option (b) Kari retains her flanking position on the Reanimates, whereas in option (a) she and the Reanimates are engaged side-to-side, and neither is flanking.

HOWEVER

There is a catch. The Rules Reference states: "When a unit is closing in to fill the gap left by a single tray being removed , the close in results in a collision." In example (b) above, Kari does NOT fill the gap left by a single tray, therefore her shift does not technically result in a collision. Right? Even example (a) is called into question if we read the next sentence.

"The gap left by the tray and the distance covered by the straight, speed-1 template are identical—even though they sometimes appear not to be as a result of trays being bumped."

Why would they outline the distance covered by the template if you are moving along the edge that will be considered engaged? Note that the distance traveled would be irrelevant if example (a) were legal, because as soon as the shift was initiated, you would come into contact, according to our current interpretation. No, I think they are specifically talking about closing in to bump into a remaining tray, as shown on page 22 of the Rules Reference. That is, a tray must exist in the direction of the shift action in order to cause a collision from closing in. If there is no tray to bump into, I believe that you are unable to close in.

Thoughts? Discussion? Am I way off here? If I am right, does this change the game appreciably? (I sent a rules query months ago, but no response yet. I tried sending another one today, but it kept failing, so I decided to bring the issue before my esteemed colleagues - you!)

@Parakitor I see your point about "to fill the gap left by a single tray." That has me convinced that Kari would not be able to shift sideways. However. I think she should still be able to close in by occupying the position that Renimate tray #4 was in. At the moment trays #3 and #4 are destroyed, Kari is no longer engaged. When she shifts forward, she will be touching tray #2. She has now collided with tray #2.

Collision, Rule 18: "After a unit performs a march ( ? ) or shift ( ? ) action, if it is touching an obstacle that it was not touching before performing that action, it has collided with that obstacle."

As you quoted above, Rule 17.1 says that after closing in, you must square up. Rule 77.1 says, in part:

"To square up his unit, the player pivots his unit around the point of contact with the enemy unit until the squaring-up unit’s front edge is parallel with the enemy unit’s contacted edge for that engagement."

As I read it, Kari would wipe out trays #3 and #4, shift into the spot where #4 was, then rotate so that her front edge was facing tray #2.

55.3

"• If the only part of a unit that would overlap an obstacle is a connector on one of the unit’s side edges, the unit can be slightly nudged directly away from the obstacle such that the connector no longer overlaps the obstacle. Then, the movement proceeds as normal. (When moving sideways, this rule applies to the connectors on the front and back edges of the unit instead of the side edges.)"

This reads to me that you should not be colliding with the connectors while closing in.

In the spirit of this reading and simplification of measurement, my group has been allowing a sngle tray unit to pass through a single tray of friendly unit when squared up with the back of it and performing a march or shift 2. We just pick it up and place it on the other side. This most often happens after deployment when blockers sometimes get deployed directly behind small ranged units.