It seems clear the intention of 22.4 is to prevent one unit from splitting into two. I totally see what you're saying from a RAW-standpoint - the wording indicates that the whole tray is off limits. This works fine for regular figures, because there's no need to target them if they're in a middle tray. But I believe figure upgrades should be exempt from rule 22.4, accuracy or no, since it's actually impossible to split a unit by removing them. Hopefully we get a rules update soon!

I believe the intent is figures cannot be assigned damage from the middle of a last rank (side trays only may be assigned damage.)

I also believe accuracy does override this though.

If it overrides it, you still deal with the potential of the tray being killed and the unit split.

You can target every model in the middle tray except for the last one, as that would split the unit. In that case, you would have to clear a side tray completely before you can take the last model from the center tray out.

30 minutes ago, DevilSquid said:

If it overrides it, you still deal with the potential of the tray being killed and the unit split.

You can target every model in the middle tray except for the last one, as that would split the unit. In that case, you would have to clear a side tray completely before you can take the last model from the center tray out.

Actually, the front rank becomes the back rank when only the back rank remains. (66.1 "When a unit is made up of a single rank, that rank is both
the front and back rank.")

When a figure upgrade is destroyed, it is replaced by another figure that could be assigned damage normally (i.e. from the back rank) (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.").

So if accuracy results supersede the rule that prohibits targeting figures in a tray that if removed would split a unit, then it should be able to target figure upgrades, no problem, because if a figure upgrade in the middle tray is removed, you would grab a figure from either side to replace it.

But if there's only one rank, you don't need accuracy.

16 minutes ago, DevilSquid said:

But if there's only one rank, you don't need accuracy.

You do. The rule says that figures in a tray cannot be dealt damage if removing that tray would split the unit. Doesn't matter how many units are in said tray.

That's where we disagree then. You assume all models in the tray can't be targeted, while my interpretation is that the last model to he removed (which would split the unit) can't be targeted.

Because up until the last model is killed, you're not in danger of splitting the unit.

Edit: 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 trays.

So again, to me, it means you can't assign damage to a figure in the unit if it would cause it to be split. Since you assign damage to a figure at a time (22.1), it's not till the last figure is to be assigned damage that you run into the possibility of splitting the unit.

Also, if the last model in a tray is an upgrade model (Say, Necromancer), you could kill it, as long as there was a model left in the unit to replace it (38.7). This would prevent the last model from the tray being removed, and splitting the unit.

I agree with the Devilsquid. Such is my meager contribution to this post as everything cited is in place, and prevents the unit from being split.

Having figure upgrades that you cannot actually deal with does not sound 'operating as intended' to me, otherwise they would just either A, not die until last or B, require accuracy to target in all scenarios.

On 6/14/2017 at 3:36 AM, DevilSquid said:

That's where we disagree then. You assume all models in the tray can't be targeted, while my interpretation is that the last model to he removed (which would split the unit) can't be targeted.

Because up until the last model is killed, you're not in danger of splitting the unit.

Edit: 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 trays.

So again, to me, it means you can't assign damage to a figure in the unit if it would cause it to be split. Since you assign damage to a figure at a time (22.1), it's not till the last figure is to be assigned damage that you run into the possibility of splitting the unit.

Also, if the last model in a tray is an upgrade model (Say, Necromancer), you could kill it, as long as there was a model left in the unit to replace it (38.7). This would prevent the last model from the tray being removed, and splitting the unit.

Your reading:

"Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that , if [those figures were] removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate trays."

My reading:

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

Your interpretation requires us to ignore the "in a tray" clause as being unnecessary, thus assuming the rules were not written as intended. While certainly possible, I do not find this to be the most parsimonious explanation. By your reading, the clause is stating that if the figures are removed, it would cause the unit to be split.

My interpretation says that the key idea here is the tray . You can't assign damage to a tray, only to figures, so they have to mention figures when explaining that you can't deal damage to figures that are in a tray which, if the tray were removed, would cause the unit to be split.

At this point, there is nothing to do but wait for a ruling on this. You know, I'm really starting to hate pronouns. All pronouns. Any situation. Pronouns seem to lead to nothing but confusion.

Of course it's damaging figures in a tray....where else would you damage figures?

I feel you're putting too much emphasis on the tray part, because all the other instances of doing damage is towards figures. You could theoretically kill every model in the back rank aside from one in each tray, and your opponent would still have a full rank.

To ke, it's series of steps:

1: Generate Damage

2: Pick a model to deal damage to.

2.a Will killing this model result in the model being replaced? Y/N

2.b Will killing this model split the unit? (Y/N). If You, go back to 2.

The premise that 4 models in a unit are immune from being targeted from damage just because they happen to be standing in a middle tray is rather silly to me, especially when the rules explain how to deal with such a situation.

21 minutes ago, DevilSquid said:

The premise that 4 models in a unit are immune from being targeted from damage just because they happen to be standing in a middle tray is rather silly to me, especially when the rules explain how to deal with such a situation.

But they aren't immune, it's just an abstraction of the rules. Why do you remove figures from the back of a unit? Is it because your Spearmen have 20-ft poles they are using to spear the Reanimates in the back rank? No! We all understand that as the front figures are being defeated, the units from the back shift forward to fill in the empty spaces. Instead of shuffling the entire unit's figures, you just pull off figures from the back.

When you have a 3x1 unit, the same thing is happening. You can kill the middle guys, but then the guys from the sides shift in to maintain a cohesive fighting force. That's why you aren't allowed to deal damage to a figure in a tray that, if the tray were removed, would cause the unit to be split into two or more independent trays. So the middle guys aren't "indestructible," their deaths are just abstracted by removing figures from the sides.

Everything I've said thus far is for normal figures in the unit -- no upgrades. When we add figure upgrades, the rules still handle this perfectly. The middle units cannot be targeted normally, so you use accuracy results. If you kill a figure upgrade in the middle, you replace it with a figure from one of the two side trays. You say you don't need accuracy to target figure upgrades in the middle of a 3x1 unit. I don't get that reading from the rules, but maybe the developers will go with that. We just have to wait and see. But for now, I'm playing rules as written, which prohibit a player from assigning damage to the middle tray in a 3x1 unit, thus requiring accuracy results to assign damage to figure upgrades in those trays.

(And when I say 3x1, that means 3 across and 1 deep, which is different than a 1x3, which is a single column of three trays, like what the Leonx Riders will do.)

Shoot, don't have the book on me, so placeholder till I can reference the rules that say you can target any model in the back row.

Edit: Here we go: 22.3, damage can only be assigned to the back row (and we know in a one row unit the front is the back). Then with 22.1, the attacker assign damage to models one at a time till they suffer a wound.

Accuracy let's you ignore the "only attack the back rank" as upgrades are usually in the front (which will see change with the new Heavy upgrade cards).

Also, under Wounds (92.6) a tray is destroyed only when the last model is removed.

So you're in no threat of splitting a unit until you look to remove the 'last' model in the tray, meaning you can freely target the other three models in the center tray of a 3x1 unit.

22.3 " Damage can only be assigned to figures in the backmost rank of the unit."

And as I mentioned above, 66.1 "When a unit is made up of a single rank, that rank is both the front and back rank." So yes, you can assign damage to any figure -- including figure upgrades -- in a 2x1 unit without needing accuracy results because those figures are in the backmost rank.

But immediately following rule 22.3 about assigning damage to the backmost rank, we get an exception in rule 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."

And now we're back to where we've been arguing this whole time.

If there were a figure upgrade in the left tray of a 3x1 unit, you wouldn't need accuracy results to hit it. Put that figure upgrade in the middle, and now you have to deal with the rule stating that damage can't be assigned to figures in the middle tray because it would split the unit.

You're looking for evidence that figure upgrades are an exception to the rule that damage cannot be dealt to figures in a tray that, if the tray were removed, would cause the unit to be split; that you can assign damage to figure upgrades in the middle tray of a 3x1 unit because removing that figure cannot cause the unit to be split. I just don't see anything that supports that interpretation.

You may be thinking of 38.6 "Attackers can assign damage to figure upgrades that are not in the backmost rank by spending one or more accuracy ( ? ) icons during attacks." You may say, "This rule only mentions that figure upgrades that are not in the backmost rank can be assigned damage with accuracy icons, but since our situation has a figure upgrade in the front, you don't need accuracy." But the rule does not say, "All figure upgrades in the backmost rank may be assigned damage without needing accuracy icons." It doesn't say that because it isn't true. Rule 22.4 makes it clear that trays that would split a unit is an additional situation that prevents you from assigning damage to some figures. But if you look at the Accuracy rules, you'll see that it applies to any situation where damage could not normally be applied: 2.4 "During the “Spend Mortal Strikes” and “Spend Hits” steps of an attack, the attacker can assign wounds and damage to figures that have been assigned an accuracy ( ? ) icon, even if they are in a tray that cannot normally be assigned wounds or damage ."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, rules-as-written aside, what do I think about this rule? It's totally gimmicky. The more I look at it, the more I don't like it. Why is splitting a unit such a big deal? Why not just have rules that dictate how to put the unit back together after getting split. And if that causes enemies to become unengaged, allow them to close in. But that's not how the game system currently works.

No,our difference in opinions that you see "no models in the middle tray may be assgned damage" while I see "the last model in a middle tray may not he assigned damage".

You do not check to see if a unit would be split until a tray is removed, and that only happens when the last model is looking to be removed. Your leaning on "any figures in a tray that if removed would split the unit" as a condition of being indestructible is the hiccup.

"Any figures", to me, is "any figures that may happen to be in the tray" so they don't have to specifically say what kind of models may be removed.

Edit: Also, pg10-11 under Damage also sums it up in less confusing language.

11 minutes ago, DevilSquid said:

No,our difference in opinions that you see "no models in the middle tray may be assgned damage" while I see "the last model in a middle tray may not he assigned damage".

Yes, I know that's where we disagree. I said as much earlier. We agree on what we disagree about.

So if you agree on what you disagree on, then you can't disagree on what you agree, therefore you are in agreement.

6 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

So if you agree on what you disagree on, then you can't disagree on what you agree, therefore you are in agreement.

Your logic is agreeable.

57 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

So if you agree on what you disagree on, then you can't disagree on what you agree, therefore you are in agreement.

51 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Your logic is agreeable.

I agree.

so on from your questions if you have left just 3 front rank bases and the middle is the golem and the morale card is drawn that removes and upgrade and you loose the the golem we have just moved the other trays together does this sound correct

1 hour ago, wblackthorn said:

so on from your questions if you have left just 3 front rank bases and the middle is the golem and the morale card is drawn that removes and upgrade and you loose the the golem we have just moved the other trays together does this sound correct

When a heavy upgrade is removed, it is replaced with another tray from the back rank of the unit. If the unit is only one rank deep, it would be replaced by another tray in the front, which is also the back. Who chooses which tray is up for debate.

I think parsing the English language, that Budgernaut is probably correct, in that it refers to a tray being removed.

I think spirit and flow of the game goes to DevilSquid -- in that you can assign damage to any figure in a center tray (with no back ranks) so long as you don't finish the tray off. Allowing you to target a figure upgrade in the center tray without an accuracy result.

On 6/15/2017 at 11:22 AM, Budgernaut said:

Your reading:

"Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that , if [those figures were] removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be split into two separate trays."

My reading:

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

I think I can see both sides of this, even though I think I agree with Budgernaut and that's how I've been playing it. Here's DevilSquid's actual reading:

"Damage cannot be assigned to any figures in a tray that, if [those figures were] removed from the unit, would cause that unit to be spit into two separate trays."

If "in a tray" is just a descriptor of the figures, figures can still be the operative noun in this sentence. It would be the same as saying:

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

Obviously the room is not the operative noun there, since the room can't be removed from the unit. You're just describing where the figures are. But the sentence structure is identical.

I personally think that tray is the operative noun, and you can't target the center tray of a unit until you kill one of the side trays, and that's how we've been playing it. My reason for feeling this is simply that "in a tray" is a strange descriptor to include, since all figures that still exist for game rules reasons are in trays. But from a pure reading the words as presented standpoint, both interpretations are valid.

On 26/7/2017 at 9:17 PM, rowdyoctopus said:

When a heavy upgrade is removed, it is replaced with another tray from the back rank of the unit. If the unit is only one rank deep, it would be replaced by another tray in the front, which is also the back. Who chooses which tray is up for debate.

you are right as always

66.1 rrg

A unit’sfront row of trays is that unit’s front rank, and a unit’s back row of trays is that unit’s back rank.

NECROMANCER CASTS RAISE THREAD!

On 27/1/2018 at 4:01 AM, Tvayumat said:

NECROMANCER CASTS RAISE THREAD!

still Ι do not understand why this example is right

Q:
If assigning damage to a figure upgrade that is in the
middle tray in the front rank of a unit would cause that
unit to be split into two separate groups of trays, must that
damage be assigned to another eligible figure?
A:
Yes.
Example: A Spearmen unit equipped with Front Line Rune
Golem has only its front rank remaining. The Rune Golem
figure is in the middle tray of the unit’s front rank. That figure
upgrade cannot be assigned damage that would cause the unit
to be split into two groups.

If a unit is made up of a single rank, that rank is both the front and back rank.