Just now, keltheos said:

I have a feeling we're overthinking this one.

[joke] I don't know about that. That depends on what you mean by overthinking. Is overthinking thinking too much about something, or is it about thinking beyond it, like you overshot it? That could really influence whether we're really overthinking it or not. [/joke]

Yeah, you may be right. But then, there are still unanswered questions. I agree with @kaffis that it would be weird for the back rank strength to get higher after more units are defeated.

Just now, Budgernaut said:

[joke] I don't know about that. That depends on what you mean by overthinking. Is overthinking thinking too much about something, or is it about thinking beyond it, like you overshot it? That could really influence whether we're really overthinking it or not. [/joke]

Yeah, you may be right. But then, there are still unanswered questions. I agree with @kaffis that it would be weird for the back rank strength to get higher after more units are defeated.

Now my brain hurts. I'll go back and read through all of this when I have some cells to put to it. (so honestly, haven't been thorough in reading this yet) But I'd think that when you fight a flank, since there rank bonus is gone you're just using what side you're facing when it fights back. Not sure why the threat would be less than the number of trays the enemy decided to charge into...

5 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

But that's exactly what 82.1 says: "When performing a melee attack, a unit’s threat is equal to the number of trays that comprise the contacted edge."

Then what is the function of the statement about partial ranks for? I'm no saying I'm right really but if it was just trays in contacted edge you wouldn't need a partial rank statement

Just now, Klaxas said:

Then what is the function of the statement about partial ranks for? I'm no saying I'm right really but if it was just trays in contacted edge you wouldn't need a partial rank statement

Maybe that's specifically for attacking from the rear. So your threat out the front and back never goes down until you are down to your first row, but the sides do go down as trays are removed. Maybe?

3 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Maybe that's specifically for attacking from the rear. So your threat out the front and back never goes down until you are down to your first row, but the sides do go down as trays are removed. Maybe?

I don't have my book on me ATM but if that were the case I think they would have called it out as a rear flank rather than have a poorly worded rule like that. It also seems strange that your rear rank is more protected than your sides.

5 minutes ago, Klaxas said:

I don't have my book on me ATM but if that were the case I think they would have called it out as a rear flank rather than have a poorly worded rule like that. It also seems strange that your rear rank is more protected than your sides.

Yeah, the whole situation is strange. Every interpretation leaves someone thinking, "Then why didn't they just word it that way?" There must be a bunch of clutter in the rules from previous rules iterations.

We're overthinking 'flank'. I did that when I read it and had to reread after a couple games. Flank for RW is simply 'any side of the unit that's not the front'. That's it. Maybe they could have defined it down to sides/back but that's where the other rules come in.

It is a redundant rule. It is just saying the same thing in a different way. I think a lot of people are over thinking this one.

10 minutes ago, keltheos said:

We're overthinking 'flank'. I did that when I read it and had to reread after a couple games. Flank for RW is simply 'any side of the unit that's not the front'. That's it. Maybe they could have defined it down to sides/back but that's where the other rules come in.

I don't think "flank" is relevant at all here. Section 82 that describes Threat makes no mention of flank or flanking. Flanking affects rerolls but has no effect on threat.