I see people assuming that you close in when only a corner is touching, and I get that is based on the diagram in the back of the rules book, BUT engagement states that you can be engaged through corners (34.3, first bullet point) and closing in only allows you to square up if not engaged, but you ARE engaged if corners are touching.

It seems to our play group that 34.3 and the diagram in the back contradict each other.
Is there something other than the diagram that states corners don't count as engagement, because so far we've only found things that say it does count.

Although, in all fairness, 34.3 doesn't make much sense in regards to which facing you attack when you have a single tray, I guess you get to choose?

I'd love to see some additional examples from FFG on this but it doesn't seem like if you've squared up previously that you'd still be engaged when there are no longer any contacted edges.

See, that was my initial thought too.

That when the dead tray was removed, you'd be back just a little bit from the corner thanks to the pegs.

BUT, that line of thought took me down another dark path.
If that doesn't count as being corner to corner, then it's impossible to ever get +threat from corner to corner trays, because they're never actually touching corner to corner, and obviously the intention IS for them to still count as touching corner to corner (even if they're not actually touching) for purposes of threat.

So in that case, it gets very uncertain very fast.

To answer this question get three trays. Interlock two of the trays as if they were in formation. Square up the third tray as if it were engaged along the long edge of the first unit. Notice the gap between the corners. Question answered.

I don't understand. Threat isn't based on the number of trays that are making contact. It is based on the number of trays on the contacted edge. If a 4x1 unit is engaged along it's front edge with a 1x1 unit it has 4 threat.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

7 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I don't understand. Threat isn't based on the number of trays that are making contact. It is based on the number of trays on the contacted edge. If a 4x1 unit is engaged along it's front edge with a 1x1 unit it has 4 threat.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

Huh, ?I think we assumed that "contacted edge" meant they had to be in contact (or at least I did).
ie, you could only ever get a max of 3 threat on a character because only 3 trays could contact him (if counting corners).
It was not my interpretation that it meant the entire edge.

We've been playing with such small units that bigger threats hadn't come into play yet.
But I see what you are saying.

17 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

To answer this question get three trays. Interlock two of the trays as if they were in formation. Square up the third tray as if it were engaged along the long edge of the first unit. Notice the gap between the corners. Question answered.

I had thought of this, but then thought that contradicted the engagement rule, until WWHSD just clarified that I was doing that rule wrong.
Then everything else slides into place (literally, using a close in).

Thanks guys/gals!

17 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

To answer this question get three trays. Interlock two of the trays as if they were in formation. Square up the third tray as if it were engaged along the long edge of the first unit. Notice the gap between the corners. Question answered.

So then this brings the point that , if a 2 tray unit is engaged with a single tray unit and then you square up, you have a full on squared tray and one that is corner to corner. If you are saying that the corner tray is not technically touching the single tray unit, then there would never be a case in which you would have a corner to corner unit in a normal game. Since collisions cause you to square up, there would never be a corner to corner to contact. If that is the case then why bother explaining the corner to corner engagement at all? That doesn't seem correct.

3 hours ago, Chickenlipz said:

So then this brings the point that , if a 2 tray unit is engaged with a single tray unit and then you square up, you have a full on squared tray and one that is corner to corner. If you are saying that the corner tray is not technically touching the single tray unit, then there would never be a case in which you would have a corner to corner unit in a normal game. Since collisions cause you to square up, there would never be a corner to corner to contact. If that is the case then why bother explaining the corner to corner engagement at all? That doesn't seem correct.

If you are unable to completely square up you leave the model where the collision occurred. This could leave you making contact with your corner rather than with an edge.

Your supposed to be ignoring the pegs. They dont exist for gameplay purposes. When we play we consider the trays basicly locked up peg to peg when we squarre up because the rules say the pegs are ignore for moving and such. SO even when you square up you should in my opinon consider the pegs non exsistant and assume you are flush.

3 minutes ago, bigwebb24 said:

Your supposed to be ignoring the pegs. They dont exist for gameplay purposes. When we play we consider the trays basicly locked up peg to peg when we squarre up because the rules say the pegs are ignore for moving and such. SO even when you square up you should in my opinon consider the pegs non exsistant and assume you are flush.

Connectors are viable points for determining line of sight.

If you are moving and the only thing that would overlap is your connector, you can nudge the unit to the side and continue moving from the new position.

12 minutes ago, bigwebb24 said:

Your supposed to be ignoring the pegs. They dont exist for gameplay purposes. When we play we consider the trays basicly locked up peg to peg when we squarre up because the rules say the pegs are ignore for moving and such. SO even when you square up you should in my opinon consider the pegs non exsistant and assume you are flush.

4 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Connectors are viable points for determining line of sight.

If you are moving and the only thing that would overlap is your connector, you can nudge the unit to the side and continue moving from the new position.

To add to this, it comes from rule 55.3, third bullet: "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. "

Doing so appears to be optional, so while you could ignore the connectors, you can also choose not to and allow them to be used to establish contact. For example, if you charge, and only your connector hits the connector of an enemy, you are well within the rules to declare that as a collision. Likewise, if you move and your connector hits an ally, you may choose to nudge the unit slightly so that the unit does not collide with the ally.

5 minutes ago, bigwebb24 said:

Your supposed to be ignoring the pegs. They dont exist for gameplay purposes. When we play we consider the trays basicly locked up peg to peg when we squarre up because the rules say the pegs are ignore for moving and such. SO even when you square up you should in my opinon consider the pegs non exsistant and assume you are flush.

That's not accurate. I don't see anything in the Rule Reference that says that connectors are to be ignored.

They exist for determining Line of Sight.
RRG, pg 13:
'The connectors on each tray are viable points for determining line of sight.'

If only the connector along the side (or front and rear if shifting) would cause a collision, you can nudge the tray to avoid the collision. You are not required to do so if you would prefer to collide.
RRG, pg 14:
'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.)'

So the rule says you can ignore the connector if it gets in the way. It just seems weird that if you can ignore the connector, you can then say no, the connector applies to keep distance between corner trays. And in what way would you use the connector to determine LOS? They are are on the front or side of the tray but LOS still has to be within the arc. What is an example of using the connectors for line of sight?

21 minutes ago, Chickenlipz said:

And in what way would you use the connector to determine LOS? They are are on the front or side of the tray but LOS still has to be within the arc. What is an example of using the connectors for line of sight?

It is referring to a connector on a tray of the unit that is being targeted. If the only part of the base that's in LoS is the connector, it's still in LoS.