1 hour ago, Tvayumat said:

This interpretation has been put forward a few times now, but it really seems to be trying too hard to read into something that isn't there.

Oops sorry I missed those other times... please forgive me for asking you to retread old ground

My intent was not to read into something that wasn't there, but to wrap my head around seemingly contradictory or badly imparted rules (c.f. engagement and tray corners)

Quote

It ignores the relevant text under Overlapping

I'm sorry if I seem dense ... what relevant text is it ignoring? I would have thought the only relevant text of 60 is the opening paragraph and 60.1

Quote

it prevents you from entering terrain you are already in contact with

Does it though? Technically you don't collide with that terrain initially, but you do actually collide with it when performing a move action as Overlapping triggers once you move.

Quote

it prevents you from taking damage if ordered to march into spikes via Morale Card "Flee in Terror" if you are already contacting them.

I would have thought it prevents you from taking damage if you are sitting still (rallying or some other non-movement action) and contacting the terrain.

When you start your turn touching, no collision. If during your turn you move/overlap that terrain by a move action on your dial or are forced to move through it via a Morale "Flee in Terror" then you will collide and take damage.

Quote

The primary issue is that it assumes that the text under collision 18 is the entirety of the Collision rules, when it isn't at all.

I could not agree more! Although I didn't quote 81.1 Terrain, I did quote 60 as well as 18.

Quote

Overlapping says you collide when you overlap, so you collide when you overlap, RAW.

I agree 100% ... that was my point - you don't Collide at the start of the turn with any obstacle you are already touching. You will collide with it when you overlap, which you will do so when you are caused to overlap via a move action, either willingly (on your dial) or unwillingly (morale test).

Looking at my original post I see that I was perhaps less than clear on the final point. I did not clarify that the unit ultimately collides.

Here are my steps again with better worded intent in the final point:

• A unit marches forward and overlaps an obstacle. It is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle. (per Overlapping 60.1)
  
• Next turn, the unit marches forward again. It does not collide with the terrain it is already touching. (per Collision 18)
  
• Although the unit does not collide (per Collision 18), as it marches forward it overlaps the obstacle and Collides (per Overlapping 60.1) … therefore it is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle, and resolves a Collision.

15 minutes ago, maxam said:

Oops sorry I missed those other times... please forgive me for asking you to retread old ground

My intent was not to read into something that wasn't there, but to wrap my head around seemingly contradictory or badly imparted rules (c.f. engagement and tray corners)

I'm sorry if I seem dense ... what relevant text is it ignoring? I would have thought the only relevant text of 60 is the opening paragraph and 60.1

Does it though? Technically you don't collide with that terrain initially, but you do actually collide with it when performing a move action as Overlapping triggers once you move.

I would have thought it prevents you from taking damage if you are sitting still (rallying or some other non-movement action) and contacting the terrain.

When you start your turn touching, no collision. If during your turn you move/overlap that terrain by a move action on your dial or are forced to move through it via a Morale "Flee in Terror" then you will collide and take damage.

I could not agree more! Although I didn't quote 81.1 Terrain, I did quote 60 as well as 18.

I agree 100% ... that was my point - you don't Collide at the start of the turn with any obstacle you are already touching. You will collide with it when you overlap, which you will do so when you are caused to overlap via a move action, either willingly (on your dial) or unwillingly (morale test).

Looking at my original post I see that I was perhaps less than clear on the final point. I did not clarify that the unit ultimately collides.

Here are my steps again with better worded intent in the final point:

• A unit marches forward and overlaps an obstacle. It is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle. (per Overlapping 60.1)
  
• Next turn, the unit marches forward again. It does not collide with the terrain it is already touching. (per Collision 18)
  
• Although the unit does not collide (per Collision 18), as it marches forward it overlaps the obstacle and Collides (per Overlapping 60.1) … therefore it is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle, and resolves a Collision.

Miscommunication!

We are in agreement.

11 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

.

Nevermind. I didn't see page 2...

11 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I don't think that's correct. The section on "Collisions" isn't the entirety of the rules on "Collisions". It makes a general statement on what a Collision is and provides refernces to related sections. Several other sections contain effects that trigger on a Collision.

The section on Overlapping instructs you to resolve a collision when you Overlap an obstacle. The sections for obstacles and the different movement actions contain rules for what you need to when resolving a collision that involves them.

But it is. It is the essential definition of a collision. You can never end your movement overlapping anything, so why would the collision section describe that? Movement and overlapping describe how to handle those things. The end result in both is that you end up touching the obstacle. That is what triggers the collision. It is the only thing that triggers the collision.

3 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

But it is. It is the essential definition of a collision. You can never end your movement overlapping anything, so why would the collision section describe that? Movement and overlapping describe how to handle those things. The end result in both is that you end up touching the obstacle. That is what triggers the collision. It is the only thing that triggers the collision.

What would make you think that the Collision section would contain all of the things in the game that can trigger a collision? The section itself doesn't say that. The Collision section doesn't tell us that the only thing that causes a collision is when a unit ends up touching an obstacle that it wasn't touching before a move. We've got at least 2 other sections that tell us that when a unit tries to move through an obstacle that there is a collision.

The overlapping section doesn't instruct you to check to see if there was a collision. It instructs you to resolve one.

RRG, pg. 15:
"60.1 When a unit would overlap an obstacle as part of a march
or shift action, it resolves a collision"

The section on movement also tells us that a collision occurs:

RRG, pg. 14:
"55.3 If a unit would overlap an obstacle while moving, that unit’s
movement is halted. Then, the unit slides backward along the
movement template until it is touching the obstacle, but not
overlapping it. The unit collides with that obstacle."

I guess I could see how there could be some confusion around exactly what it means to "resolve a collision" but section 55.3 couldn't be more clearly stated. "The unit collides with that obstacle" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Compare that to the Collision section:

RRG, pg. 9:
"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."

For that to exclude any other cause of collisions you need to make a lot of assumptions or mentally inject a bunch of words that aren't actually there. Even if you do, you end up in a situation where now you have sections of the RRG that contradict each other. That contradiction should be a sign that whatever assumptions you are making might not be correct.

1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

What would make you think that the Collision section would contain all of the things in the game that can trigger a collision? The section itself doesn't say that. The Collision section doesn't tell us that the only thing that causes a collision is when a unit ends up touching an obstacle that it wasn't touching before a move. We've got at least 2 other sections that tell us that when a unit tries to move through an obstacle that there is a collision.

The overlapping section doesn't instruct you to check to see if there was a collision. It instructs you to resolve one.

RRG, pg. 15:
"60.1 When a unit would overlap an obstacle as part of a march
or shift action, it resolves a collision"

The section on movement also tells us that a collision occurs:

RRG, pg. 14:
"55.3 If a unit would overlap an obstacle while moving, that unit’s
movement is halted. Then, the unit slides backward along the
movement template until it is touching the obstacle, but not
overlapping it. The unit collides with that obstacle."

I guess I could see how there could be some confusion around exactly what it means to "resolve a collision" but section 55.3 couldn't be more clearly stated. "The unit collides with that obstacle" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Compare that to the Collision section:

RRG, pg. 9:
"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."

For that to exclude any other cause of collisions you need to make a lot of assumptions or mentally inject a bunch of words that aren't actually there. Even if you do, you end up in a situation where now you have sections of the RRG that contradict each other. That contradiction should be a sign that whatever assumptions you are making might not be correct.

Why does overlapping trump touching? Section 18 says right out that if you end movement touching an obstacle you were touching, you do not collide. Section 53 says you collide because you are touching, and 60 says to resolve a collision.

16 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Section 18 says right out that if you end movement touching an obstacle you were touching, you do not collide.

But it doesn't actually say that. It says you do collide if you are touching an obstacle you weren't touching before. I can understand how you're reading it as an exception to the rules, but it can also be read as an additional case of collision. In this case, it is explains that collisions can occur from touching without overlapping, but that this sort of touch doesn't happen if you were already touching the terrain. For example, you are touching terrain, so you reform such that you will not run into it. Next turn, you do a 1-march, but you are 2-trays deep. This means that the back trays are now touching the obstacle where the front trays were. However, you are not touching an obstacle you weren't touching before, so no collision occurs. You also did not overlap the obstacle, so no collision occurs.

35 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Why does overlapping trump touching? Section 18 says right out that if you end movement touching an obstacle you were touching, you do not collide. Section 53 says you collide because you are touching, and 60 says to resolve a collision.

55.3 broken down:

1. If a unit would overlap an obstacle while moving, that unit’s
movement is halted.

2. Then, the unit slides backward along the
movement template until it is touching the obstacle, but not
overlapping it.

3. The unit collides with that obstacle.

Which of those sentences says "you collide because you are touching"?


Section 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"

Where does that say "if you end movement touching an obstacle you were touching, you do not collide"? That sentence doesn't set any restrictions on what else could cause a collision. The subsections in 18 tell you that you get a panic token for colliding with an enemy on a March, and get one for not colliding with an enemy on a Charge. Since hose are the only effects of colliding listed in this section does that mean we should ignore other sections other the rules where an effect from colliding is listed?

I agree that 60 says to resolve a collision. To me that's the same as "a collision happens, go do whatever triggers from a collision" and it seems like you read that as "check to see if a collision happens".

Deleted my response to to Budgernaut.

Sometimes I don't read good.