8 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

You are quoting the Rule Book which is talking about upgrade characters specifically. Siege units are different and for some reason are only covered in the back of the L2P book.
Siege units are replaced by an entire tray when removed. The tray is still following the same "could be assigned damage" rule, its just a tray instead of a single model since..yaknow...large model vs small model

Yes I know but I'm quoting it in response to the assertion that the defender chooses the model to replace a hero (which is used as an argument for why they would also get to choose which tray replaces the Golem).

On 5/31/2017 at 7:30 AM, stet2 said:

I don't think they do.

38.7 When a figure upgrade is destroyed, either through damage or other game effects, its upgrade card is discarded, and its figure is removed from its tray. Then, the figure upgrade’s empty slot in the front rank is replaced with another figure from that unit that could be assigned damage following normal rules.

Normal rules for assigning damage are that the attacker chooses.

Could is different than would. Any unit in the back rank can normally be assigned damage. All that rule says to me is that I can't move some unit that, for one reason or another via another game effect, cannot be assigned damage.

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Could is different than would. Any unit in the back rank can normally be assigned damage. All that rule says to me is that I can't move some unit that, for one reason or another via another game effect, cannot be assigned damage.

It's not so much the word "could" as the wording "assigned damage following normal rules". The normal rules for assigning damage include the attacker choosing not the defender (Rule 22.1).

15 minutes ago, stet2 said:

It's not so much the word "could" as the wording "assigned damage following normal rules". The normal rules for assigning damage include the attacker choosing not the defender (Rule 22.1).

Again, pretend no attack is happening. If I point to a random unit and ask what figures could be assigned damage (following normal rules), the answer is every figure in the back rank. It doesn't matter what would be assigned damage, only what could.

Yes, every figure in the back rank could be assigned damage. Now you go one step further and a choice has to be made to choose one of those figures to replace the hero that's been killed. Someone has to make that choice "following the normal rules for assigning damage" which is the attacker.

57 minutes ago, stet2 said:

Yes, every figure in the back rank could be assigned damage. Now you go one step further and a choice has to be made to choose one of those figures to replace the hero that's been killed. Someone has to make that choice "following the normal rules for assigning damage" which is the attacker.

It actually doesn't say that. It says that a figure "that could be assigned damage following normal rules" is moved from the back to the front.

It doesn't say follow normal damage rules to make the choice, only that the choice must be a viable option for damage, following normal rules (anything in the back rank, barring special cards, won't split the unit in half, etc.)

Rule 22.1 is one of the normal rules for assigning damage just as Rule 22.3 (has to be from bank rank) is; i.e. which can be chosen AND who makes the choice.

Why are you saying apply 1 part of the assigning damage rules but not the other?

8 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

It actually doesn't say that. It says that a figure "that could be assigned damage following normal rules" is moved from the back to the front.

It doesn't say follow normal damage rules to make the choice, only that the choice must be a viable option for damage, following normal rules (anything in the back rank, barring special cards, won't split the unit in half, etc.)

I agree. For "following normal rules" to be a clause that clarifies how the replacement is made, it would need to have a comma before it. Because it doesn't, then "that-could-be-assigned-damage-following-normal-rules" is one adjectival clause modifying the noun "figure."

1 hour ago, stet2 said:

Rule 22.1 is one of the normal rules for assigning damage just as Rule 22.3 (has to be from bank rank) is; i.e. which can be chosen AND who makes the choice.

Why are you saying apply 1 part of the assigning damage rules but not the other?

Because that is what the rule says to do. It doesn't say the process follows the rules for assigning damage. It says only that the figure chosen could be assigned damage, if damage was being assigned.

Don't get me wrong. They very well might intend for the attacker/opponent to choose, but nothing in the rules requires that as currently written.

On 29/05/2017 at 7:32 PM, Horsa said:

This in theory could leave you with 3 trays and one specialized figure in each tray? Correct

Answering the aforementioned question. This situation is not possible because damage has to be assigned to the tray that has missing figures. For example 3 spearmen and a bannerman in one of the front trays. If one spearman is killed, the next amount damage assignment must start from that tray. Sorry for not quoting the rulebook, I don't have it on me. :/

44 minutes ago, King Cheesecake said:

Answering the aforementioned question. This situation is not possible because damage has to be assigned to the tray that has missing figures. For example 3 spearmen and a bannerman in one of the front trays. If one spearman is killed, the next amount damage assignment must start from that tray. Sorry for not quoting the rulebook, I don't have it on me. :/

Don't think that's the case, certainly Rule 22 on assigning damage doesn't say this.

Could you possibly be confusing this with the rules for regenerating figures?

In practice people finish off trays because that's usually the best thing to do. 4 tray unit in a square, finish off the first tray they can only refill one die.

But the attacker can assign damage to any tray in the back rank as he/she sees fit.

4 hours ago, stet2 said:

Don't think that's the case, certainly Rule 22 on assigning damage doesn't say this.

4 hours ago, Ywingscum said:

But the attacker can assign damage to any tray in the back rank as he/she sees fit.

I read Rule 22 and I see the error in my ways. I have ascended! Thank you for guiding me.

So I would argue that it's beneficial to spread your upgrade figurines across your front ranks if you have more than one? They generally have more health, and can extend the life of each tray longer, rather than concentrating them to one?

On 6/5/2017 at 2:21 PM, Glucose98 said:

So I would argue that it's beneficial to spread your upgrade figurines across your front ranks if you have more than one? They generally have more health, and can extend the life of each tray longer, rather than concentrating them to one?

Or bunch them together in the middle so the upgrades live longer. Depends on your goals

32 minutes ago, Klaxas said:

Or bunch them together in the middle so the upgrades live longer. Depends on your goals

They don't necessarily live longer. They can be taken off with Accuracy anytime and once the unit is don to 1 rank you can target any model in the front rank, the only proviso being you can't target a model if removing it would split the unit. As you are usually allowed only 3 figure upgrades you can target all of them and still leave a single normal figure in the middle tray to prevent splitting the unit.

8 hours ago, stet2 said:

They don't necessarily live longer. They can be taken off with Accuracy anytime and once the unit is don to 1 rank you can target any model in the front rank, the only proviso being you can't target a model if removing it would split the unit. As you are usually allowed only 3 figure upgrades you can target all of them and still leave a single normal figure in the middle tray to prevent splitting the unit.

You and I read that passage differently.

22.4 "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

I read this to mean that if the tray would cause the unit to be split if removed, no figures in that tray may be assigned damage. If they were worried about figures, they could have omitted "in a tray" and said, "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

5 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

You and I read that passage differently.

22.4 "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

I read this to mean that if the tray would cause the unit to be split if removed, no figures in that tray may be assigned damage. If they were worried about figures, they could have omitted "in a tray" and said, "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

Hmm. Reading again you are probably right. So they'd still only be able to hit them using Accuracy results then.

Well, it says "cannot" assign damage. My understanding is that even accuracy results wouldn't bypass this rule.

On a different note, I, personally, believe this rule affects heavy figure upgrades as well. Some people believe that since that tray gets replaced by another tray, it wouldn't split the unit. By my interpretation, because the focus is on a tray that would cause the unit to be split if removed, even middle-column Front Line Rune Golems cannot be targeted if the front rank is all that remains. But I acknowledge that this strict interpretation is a minority opinion.

True but the not splitting trays is 22.4 while accuracy is 22.5 and states:

When performing an attack, the attacker can spend any number of accuracy icons to allow him to assign damage to figure upgrades that cannot normally be assigned damage .

which over-rules 22.4.

13 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

You and I read that passage differently.

22.4 "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

I read this to mean that if the tray would cause the unit to be split if removed, no figures in that tray may be assigned damage. If they were worried about figures, they could have omitted "in a tray" and said, "Damage cannot be assigned to any figures that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays."

To me, the only figures that if removed would result in the tray being removed would be the last figure. And as you can assign damage to any figures in the last rank, you can kill 3/4 models in the center tray, but can't kill the last figure because it would split the unit. It doesn't provide immunity to the whole base, just the last figure.

As for the Heavy Upgrades, they're not immune either, because while you still can't split the unit, the Heavy Upgrade rules on page 18 of the Learn to Play say that if the heavy upgrade is removed, you replace it with a full tray from the back rank (even if all that's left is one rank). So if you have three bases with the heavy in the middle, and it gets killed, one of the other two bases have to replace it, and thus avoids the 'splinter' unit situation.

42 minutes ago, DevilSquid said:

To me, the only figures that if removed would result in the tray being removed would be the last figure. And as you can assign damage to any figures in the last rank, you can kill 3/4 models in the center tray, but can't kill the last figure because it would split the unit. It doesn't provide immunity to the whole base, just the last figure.

As for the Heavy Upgrades, they're not immune either, because while you still can't split the unit, the Heavy Upgrade rules on page 18 of the Learn to Play say that if the heavy upgrade is removed, you replace it with a full tray from the back rank (even if all that's left is one rank). So if you have three bases with the heavy in the middle, and it gets killed, one of the other two bases have to replace it, and thus avoids the 'splinter' unit situation.

It doesn't say the if the figure is removed it results in the tray being removed. It says if a tray was removed it would split the unit, then the figures in that tray cannot be assigned damage. I would argue that accuracy would allow you to damage the figure just like a heavy upgrade, as it is replaced before trays are removed.

Nah, I don't think it's that complicated. "Figures" makes it easy to say "anything that may be on the tray, from upgrades, to rank troops, to heroes".

You can kill any models you want in the "last" rank, but you can't kill the last model in a middle tray that would cause the unit to split.

I'm pretty confident FFG's intent was not to create "immortal models" because of situational placement in the unit.

Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays. However, from 38.7 we can see that removing a figure upgrade from a unit can never cause a unit to split , because it's always replaced by another figure from the unit!

2 hours ago, Contrapulator said:

Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate groups of trays. However, from 38.7 we can see that removing a figure upgrade from a unit can never cause a unit to split , because it's always replaced by another figure from the unit!

It's true, which is the confusing point about all of this. Even though removing that figure upgrade won't split the unit, removing the tray that the figure upgrade is in will split the unit. So does that mean we can't target them? Or is it like someone (Stet2?) said in another thread, that accuracy results override that rule?