2 hours ago, QuickWhit said:

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

The rule says "can be." To me, that means nudging is optional, so if you want to collide, you are more than welcome to use the connectors. This doesn't apply to closing in because an overlap never occurs when closing in - you just touch trays.

At the point in which you would make contact with the opponent's connector with your front edge while closing in forward, you would also simultaneously connect your side tab with their front edge. I can't find anything in the rules that helps to decide if you collided with the opponents side with your front or the opponents front with your side.

Either way, I believe the intent, as demonstrated by the below image (from the rulebook), is that you would not collide with the connector while closing in, but instead would just fill that empty space and be connected on your side.

I think this also supports the idea that a unit can cross a single tray ally with a march equal to their own depth plus 1 to clear the ally's tray. So a 3x1 can cross a hero that they are touching and directly squared up behind with a march 2.

Touching doesn't stop your movement - overlapping does. If your movement ends with you touching something, you have collided with it, even if you never overlapped it.*

When closing in as in the picture above, neither the rear edge of the front tray of Reanimates, nor the side edge of rear tray of Reanimates, are going to halt the close-in shift. That movement fully completes, but the end position has the Oathsworn Cavalry touching both trays. That's how I interpret it.

As for the argument about skipping over friendly trays, I think you have some arguments that we should discuss as a community, but I think that discussion deserves its own thread to keep this one focused on closing in.

*I think it is important to point out to veteran X-Wing players that this is different from X-Wing. In X-Wing, collisions only happen if there is an overlap.

need faq for that. When was it last time updated?

4 minutes ago, Warlordus said:

need faq for that. When was it last time updated?

October 24th. Wow. That was some time ago!

I did manage to submit my question to the rules questions section of customer support this weekend. Hopefully it's included in the next FAQ (and hopefully that's soon!)

In the meantime, we're playing that "if you become no longer engaged with a unit due to the enemy unit losing trays, you may close in by performing a speed-1 shift in any direction. If this puts you adjacent to the same unit you had been engaged with, you are considered to still be engaged. If you cannot end adjacent to that unit, you cannot close in."

On 7/9/2018 at 6:09 PM, Parakitor said:

October 24th. Wow. That was some time ago!

I did manage to submit my question to the rules questions section of customer support this weekend. Hopefully it's included in the next FAQ (and hopefully that's soon!)

In the meantime, we're playing that "if you become no longer engaged with a unit due to the enemy unit losing trays, you may close in by performing a speed-1 shift in any direction. If this puts you adjacent to the same unit you had been engaged with, you are considered to still be engaged. If you cannot end adjacent to that unit, you cannot close in."

That's what the rule already is.

You collide with a unit if you perform a shift or march and are touching an enemy unit at the end of that shift or march. You don't need to overlap.

3 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

That's what the rule already is.

You collide with a unit if you perform a shift or march and are touching an enemy unit at the end of that shift or march. You don't need to overlap.

Exactly. That's the generally held rules interpretation. I've asked FFG for clarification, so hopefully it's addressed in the FAQ.

The short of it is that I think there is room for the interpretation that you are required to shift into the space that the enemy's tray once occupied. We'll see what FFG says, but my point was that I'm not going to rock the boat - we'll just stay the course.

I posted my thoughts to see if others had the same interpretation as I, but it looks like that's a "no."

Didn't read all of this, but.... if you flank a 2x2 on the side and square up on the rear rank, and then remove those two trays, you are now unengaged and corner to corner. A shift 1 forward will put the hero side against back. Neither gets rerolls or precise or anything because neither is flanking either. A shift 1 sideways will have the hero flanking the now 2x1. If you remove 3 trays and the furthest tray from the hero is all that remains you cannot close in as you will be unable to engage.

9 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

That's  what the rule alr  eady is. 

The distinction you're missing is that the rules say you close in to fill the gap left by the missing tray that was removed. If you focus on the "fill the gap" part, then shifting sideways in the situation presented by the OP doesn't work because you are not filling the gap. Parakitor is saying nobody else seems to have caught that so far, so he won't enforce that for now, but he believes that is how closing in is meant to be played.

EDIT: This is in the second bullet of closing in. I read rules as written agreeing with you, but Parakitor's point may indicate that the rules as intended are different, which is why a rules clarification is important.

4 hours ago, Jukey said:

A  shift 1 forward will put the hero side against back. Neither gets rerolls or precise or anything because neither is flanking either 

The Closing In rules state that closing in results in a collision. The Collision rules state that after colliding, you square up. The Squaring Up rules state that you reform such that your front edge is touching the contacted edge of the unit you are engaged with. Seems to me you will not be side to side and will be flanking.

2 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

The Closing In rules state that closing in results in a collision. The Collision rules state that after colliding, you square up. The Squaring Up rules state that you reform such that your front edge is touching the contacted edge of the unit you are engaged with. Seems to me you will not be side to side and will be flanking.

This is another part of closing in that needs to be addressed. You mentioned this before, but I didn't understand until just now how you arrived to that conclusion. Hopefully they give us a detailed explanation, or at least put some good diagrams in the FAQ.

For the record, we never play that you square up with your front edge in that situation. Maybe we should? More Q's for FFG.

5 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

The Closing In rules state that closing in results in a collision. The Collision rules state that after colliding, you square up. The Squaring Up rules state that you reform such that your front edge is touching the contacted edge of the unit you are engaged with. Seems to me you will not be side to side and will be flanking.

If you are squared up before the attack, a shift 1 is a trays width. If you were to remove the trays with no wiggle at all the hero would slide right into the place the trays were. Unfortunately things get bumped.

Closing in is somewhat a special movement rule. It's to allow smoother combat and avoid too much free movement.

If the nubs on the trays collide while closing in it's the result of jank, this should not be considered a collision. The closing in unit should simply be moved to be in contacting edge so long as it's no more than a tray distant.

16 minutes ago, Jukey said:

If you are squared up before the attack, a shift 1 is a trays width. If you were to remove the trays with no wiggle at all the hero would slide right into the place the trays were. Unfortunately things get bumped.

Closing in is somewhat a special movement rule. It's to allow smoother combat and avoid too much free movement.

If the nubs on the trays collide while closing in it's the result of jank, this should not be considered a collision. The closing in unit should simply be moved to be in contacting edge so long as it's no more than a tray distant.

So you are saying that if Kari closes in from the side when the back rank of a 2x2 Reanimates unit is eliminated, she is not touching the back of the front rank? I think she should be, based on the rules and geometry of the game. THE CONNECTORS DO NOT NEED TO OVERLAP IN ORDER TO CAUSE A COLLISION. If you are touching a unit you were not touching before your movement action, you have collided, whether an overlap occurred or not. Since you can't even close in unless you a) are not touching after trays are removed, and b) must be touching after closing in, then you must initiate a collision. The rules are clear that as part of closing in, you collide and square up, but squaring up is the only part of the collision that you resolve. You ignore panic and effects like Aggressive [musician].

I can't understand why you have now twice refuted my statements by declaring overlapping connectors as accidental jank, when overlapping is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

(Not trying to shout here, just trying to emphasize my point. I'm slightly exasperrated at this point, but I hold no malice or anger. Just want to get this cleared up. Feel free to continue to find flaws in my argument, but I don't feel this counter argument of yours is applicable.)

37 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

So you are saying that if Kari closes in from the side when the back rank of a 2x2 Reanimates unit is eliminated, she is not touching the back of the front rank? I think she should be, based on the rules and geometry of the game. THE CONNECTORS DO NOT NEED TO OVERLAP IN ORDER TO CAUSE A COLLISION. If you are touching a unit you were not touching before your movement action, you have collided, whether an overlap occurred or not. Since you can't even close in unless you a) are not touching after trays are removed, and b) must be touching after closing in, then you must initiate a collision. The rules are clear that as part of closing in, you collide and square up, but squaring up is the only part of the collision that you resolve. You ignore panic and effects like Aggressive [musician].

I can't understand why you have now twice refuted my statements by declaring overlapping connectors as accidental jank, when overlapping is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

(Not trying to shout here, just trying to emphasize my point. I'm slightly exasperrated at this point, but I hold no malice or anger. Just want to get this cleared up. Feel free to continue to find flaws in my argument, but I don't feel this counter argument of yours is applicable.)

Not trying to offend. Yes, Kari will be touching the back edge of the reanimated, as stated in the original question. No, she will not square up with her front edge because her side is the only point in contact with the reanimates. You only have a choice on how you square up when colliding on a corner, which is why I keep referring to jank, because to close in from a flank will put you side to back, there is no corner to change your facing.

We really need diagrams.

10 minutes ago, Jukey said:

Not trying to offend. Yes, Kari will be touching the back edge of the reanimated, as stated in the original question. No, she will not square up with her front edge because her side is the only point in contact with the reanimates. You only have a choice on how you square up when colliding on a corner, which is why I keep referring to jank, because to close in from a flank will put you side to back, there is no corner to change your facing.

We really need diagrams.

Okay, I finally see the point you are trying to make. When I read the squaring up rules, however, I don't see anything in there that indicates you only square up if contacting by only a corner. In fact, Squaring Up specifically says that squaring up means making your front edge line up with the unit you collided with. The only time you would be considered to have squared up with your side edge is if you were shifting sideways (see 77.3). So I still believe that you would rotate so your front edge is in contact with their back edge even though your side edge is already flush with their back edge.

Hmmm 77.3 is a weird one. At first glance I feel it validates me as it discusses treating the other edges as the front edge. But it says when moving sideways or backwards...and the situation here is a forward close in. I'll bring this up tonight at game night and see what the other guys say. It would make closing in considerably more deadly.

This might be something, 34.3 while to units are engaged, the edge that is touching an enemy unit is called the contacting edge. So, if you close in as discussed wouldn't your side become the contacting edge and therefore nullify the need to square up? I'm genuinely curious if it's meant to sequence this way.

I'm really glad that I linked to this forum topic in my latest rules question that I submitted. With so many little areas that cause misunderstanding, maybe we'll get a rewrite of the Closing In section that spells it all out.

On 7/6/2018 at 2:40 PM, Parakitor said:

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!)

That last bullet point is a clarification, and does not restrict the rules text. The fact of the matter is that the trigger is an engaged unit losing trays and the effect is the unit that did not lose trays performs a shift IF it puts the units back in contact. Sliding along a flank will always put the units back in contact.

The clarification exists to avoid arguments of "you're 2mm short" by clarifying that a speed-1 shift will ALWAYS cover the distance of one removed tray, nothing else.

On 7/7/2018 at 6:00 AM, QuickWhit said:

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.

I'm afraid this ruling is incorrect. Not only does 55.3 not apply to your front and back pegs while moving forward, but the overlap is actually more considerable than it seems at first glance:

When dealing with parallel units and straight moves, speed-3 is the absolute minimum required to move through a unit.

edit: oh, there's a page 2!

On 7/13/2018 at 11:03 AM, Budgernaut said:

Okay, I finally see the point you are trying to make. When I read the squaring up rules, however, I don't see anything in there that indicates you only square up if contacting by only a corner. In fact, Squaring Up specifically says that squaring up means making your front edge line up with the unit you collided with. The only time you would be considered to have squared up with your side edge is if you were shifting sideways (see 77.3). So I still believe that you would rotate so your front edge is in contact with their back edge even though your side edge is already flush with their back edge.

Good sleuthing, but I don't think so. Critically, 77.1 asks you to pivot the unit around the point of contact, and there (usually) won't be one when closing in - because the units started aligned, the shift brings them back into contact, meaning they contact along a plane, not at a point. 77.1 must then be ignored.

The exception, I guess (apart from units that couldn't square up initially for whatever reason) are units that can treat their shifts as modified by turns! So if it were Aliana with Wildcall's Instinct in place of Kari, she would in fact be able to close in such that her front edge contacts the back edge of the remaining two trays.

@Bhelliom Yes, I read the part about rotating around the point of contact, but I don't think that overrules the fact that squaring up specifically says to rotate so your front edge is in contact and closing in specifically says to square up.

There either needs to be an explicit rule stating that you can't square up if your edge is flush with an enemy unit, or there needs to be one staring that if you have an edge flush with an enemy's edge when you are to square up, you may pick any point along the contacted edge to rotate around. Barring one of those two clarifications, I don't think this can be settled.

In my mind, saying that it doesn't work because the rules say "point of contact"is as absurd to me as you probably think it's absurd to say that "point of contact" means any part of the tray that is in contact.