Ok, I want to know how to calculate the threat when flanked: in all the situations A-B-C is flanked by 1-2. As rules reference, 82.1 threat ignoring partial ranks makes me have a lot of doubts.

Situation A: Side in contact 1-2|A-C, the threat is 2. There is no so much doubts about this.

Situation B: Side in contact 1-2|B, the threat is... (if I ignore B, then threat in contact edge is 2 (A-C), if I ignore C then the threat is 1).

Situation C: Side in contact 1-2|C, the threat is... (If I ignore C, then the threat is 2, I don't see any way don't to ignore C since the 82.1 second paragraph)

How do you solve this situations?

I believe the answers are

A) 2

B) 1 [You do not ignore tray B because it is not a partial rank. C is part of a partial rank, but you ignore it anyway since it is not in contact. The second bullet of 82.1 is superfluous.]

C) 1

The ambiguous answer is C, and that's one we need clarification for. If we just focus on the rule that threat is equal to the number of trays on the contacted edge, there are no issues. There is one bullet point causing confusion. It talks about ignoring partial ranks if the contacted edge is shortened by a partial rank. I am 90% certain that this bullet was written with only side-attacks in mind, which is where the confusion comes from.

There is also a possibility that "shortened by a partial rank" means something specific that we are missing. Since ranks are counted only on the side, it's possible that the bullet about partial ranks only applies to side-attacks. I doubt this, however.

I think if they just delete the offending bullet point, it will all work fine.

I'd say the threat is 2 in all cases.

Reasons:

1 hour ago, Chaoticus said:

I'd say the threat is 2 in all cases.

...

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, the OP is asking how much threat the black unit has when attacking the red unit in different situations. Yes, the red unit has threat of 2 in all cases, but that is not the question here.

It's ambiguous. 82.1 is nice and clear, but then the second bullet point introduces all manner of uncertainty. 82.1 reads:

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

That's easy. However many trays the unit has on the EDGE contacting the enemy (regardless of how many are actually touching enemy trays. Looking at this, the answers would be 2, 1, and 1. However,

"If the contacted edge is shortened by a partial rank, calculate the number of trays as if the partial rank was not present."

is difficult to interpret. The first question is what does it mean for an edge to be shortened? Most likely, that clause applies only to situation B, but I could definitely see an argument that it also applies to situation A (one of the trays on the contacted edge is part of a shortened rank). Next, in situation C, if you ignore the partial rank, do you then superimpose the contact onto the next full rank? Is the number of trays zero?

I've resolved to just ignore that second bullet point until it's clarified.

6 minutes ago, Bhelliom said:

The first question is what does it mean for an edge to be shortened? Most likely, that clause applies only to situation B, but I could definitely see an argument that it also applies to situation A (one of the trays on the contacted edge is part of a shortened rank).

I don't think you can parse it in a way that affects situation A. The rule says, "If the contacted edge is shortened ..." and we can see that the edge is not shortened. The clause "... by a partial rank" just clarifies what would be doing the shortening. The edge in A is not shortened, but the edge in B is. The rank is shortened in B, but that is not a condition we are told to check.

1 minute ago, Budgernaut said:

I don't think you can parse it in a way that affects situation A. The rule says, "If the contacted edge is shortened ..." and we can see that the edge is not shortened. The clause "... by a partial rank" just clarifies what would be doing the shortening. The edge in A is not shortened, but the edge in B is. The rank is shortened in B, but that is not a condition we are told to check.

"Shortened" is not a defined game term, so although your interpretation is almost assuredly correct, it is not the only one. Also, if it doesn't apply to A, what does it do? Does it only apply from the rear? Then why word it that way? It's not a good bullet.

Some kind of pictures like those I made with some explanation could be very useful into FAQ document. I can see everybody is having the same issues with it.

Threat is 2 in all cases, the partial rank are ignored per the RAW I'm too lazy to open and c/p.

21 minutes ago, Darthain said:

Threat is 2 in all cases, the partial rank are ignored per the RAW I'm too lazy to open and c/p.

??? How can you possibly calculate 2 threat for the black unit in the second image? Even if you ignore the partial rank (which isn't even in contact), the black unit only has 1 tray in contact so it has a threat of 1.

12 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

??? How can you possibly calculate 2 threat for the black unit in the second image? Even if you ignore the partial rank (which isn't even in contact), the black unit only has 1 tray in contact so it has a threat of 1.

You ignore the partial rank for black, so you go to the first full rank - 2. It is first full rank effectively, not contact edge immediate rank when you parse it. Thats what 82 tells us. Ignore the partial 'shortened' rank.

Posit: is the contact edge shortened by missing trays?

If yes - threat is first 'full' rank encountered.

If no - rank is threat.

Both the 2nd and 3rd example have a partial rank that shortens the contact edge.

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

You ignore the partial rank for black, so you go to the first full rank - 2. It is first full rank effectively, not contact edge immediate rank when you parse it. Thats what 82 tells us. Ignore the partial 'shortened' rank.

Posit: is the contact edge shortened by missing trays?

If yes - threat is first 'full' rank encountered.

If no - rank is threat.

Both the 2nd and 3rd example have a partial rank that shortens the contact edge.

I don't get that interpretation at all. So you're saying that threat out the sides is equal to the number of trays in the first full rank encountered? But threat isn't inherent to a rank. Threat is merely the number of trays on the contacted edge when making a melee attack OR when making a ranged attack, it is the number of trays in the front. If you are attacking with a melee attack, there is no inherent threat to your ranks. Your threat is always changing depending on which edge you are attacking out of.

In the case of picture B (second image), you ask, "How many trays are there on the edge that is in contact with the enemy?" One. Is the contacted edge of black shortened by a partial rank? Yes. So we ignore the back rank when calculating threat. Well, that's just fine because it wasn't in contact anyway.

@Budgernaut Then what is the point of the shortened trays clause in your mind?

It is difficult to argue that the rear single tray is not a partial rank, as a full rank on the black unit is 2 trays.

4 minutes ago, Darthain said:

@Budgernaut Then what is the point of the shortened trays clause in your mind?

It is difficult to argue that the rear single tray is not a partial rank, as a full rank on the black unit is 2 trays...

I can see how someone would look at image C and say, "Yeah, the contacted edge is shortened by a partial rank, so we ignore that rank and end up looking at a threat of 2, because that would be the next set of trays behind the partial rank that we are ignoring." In this case, we are still counting the number of trays on the same side as the contacted edge. However, in image B, even if we ignore the partial rank, we are still looking at only a single tray contacting the enemy, so there is no way to get 2 threat from that.

Okay, okay, okay. I think I figured out where we have a misunderstanding, @Darthain , so correct me if I'm wrong.

We both agree how to interpret the third image. Tray C is in contact with the enemy, but because it is shortened by a partial rank, we ignore that rank completely, and therefore, we check the next rank (comprised of A and B) and see that there are two trays on what would be the contacting edge.

We disagree on B and I think the reason is a differing interpretation of what a rank is. The contacted edge is being shortened because D is missing. You are looking at D-B as one rank, and C-A as another rank. Because rank D-B is missing D, you ignore B and get 2 threat for C-A.

However, rule 66 (Ranks) says, "Each horizontal row of trays running the width of a unit is one rank of that unit." Unlike threat, which changes depending on which edge you are attacking from, ranks are always rows of trays parallel to the front edge. In the examples above, the two ranks are A-B and C-D. In image 2, rank C-D is shortened because D is missing, so we ignore C. This is redundant since we would ignore C anyway because it isn't in contact. B remains and is the only tray in contact with the enemy, so the threat is 1. This is how I'm interpreting the rule.

Sounds about right, the difference being I'm assuming the contact edge you attack from kind of becomes a temporary front rank, with the exception of flanking bonus. Kind a plane of reference change.

Your definition of rank is, ofcourse, correct, I'm making leaps in a way I believe makes sense in the confines of the game I suppose.

I've decided what FFG really needs are more freaking pictures, had they done the 3 in the OP, we wouldn't be sitting here trying to work through this crap . Oh well, who has anything better to do.

Thanks you guys because of the discussion you are having here. I understand both arguments, till now I've been doing like Darthain, ignoring the temporally partial rank and having in all the cases a threat of 2, but even doing that I had a lot of doubts and this is why I open this topic. I can't decide a better argument than the other, just the rules are not clear. If I report this topic, maybe someone from FFG could answer this?

5 hours ago, Hijodecain said:

Thanks you guys because of the discussion you are having here. I understand both arguments, till now I've been doing like Darthain, ignoring the temporally partial rank and having in all the cases a threat of 2, but even doing that I had a lot of doubts and this is why I open this topic. I can't decide a better argument than the other, just the rules are not clear. If I report this topic, maybe someone from FFG could answer this?

FFG doesn't post on the forums unless it is to tell people they are participating in forum misconduct and then they take appropriate action (lock the thread, etc).

FFG.es works different then, once they told me that if we need some answers report the post so they will read it. If not there are too many posts to review.

If you submit a rules question, they will send you an email ... eventually ... maybe. They haven't responded to any rules questions so far, but I'm hoping that they will respond to the request I sent yesterday, now that the FAQ is out.

14 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

If you submit a rules question, they will send you an email ... eventually ... maybe. They haven't responded to any rules questions so far, but I'm hoping that they will respond to the request I sent yesterday, now that the FAQ is out.

I haven't gotten a rules question answered via email in like a year. I don't submit often, but this is across 4 different game lines :/

I've summit a question, if I get answer I will post it here. ;-)

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

I haven't gotten a rules question answered via email in like a year. I don't submit often, but this is across 4 different game lines :/

Oh.

7 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Oh.

Granted I tend to be pretty versed in rules of the games I play, so the questions I do ask are generally complicated and involve interactions between things they likely didn't anticipate.

For example my last Imperial Assault question basically results in them having to more clearly defined the steps of making an attack due to the interaction between two Campaign equipment upgrade cards from two completely different big box campaigns. Been 2 months and no response.

My last Star Wars RPG question involved the mechanical difference between various social skill talents and how to use them together in actual play. Essentially asking them to find some consistency and then reconcile several abilities that would then become inconsistent. This is for a game where most of the time the answer is "do what you think is best".

My Star Wars Destiny card interaction wasn't responded to directly, but the next FAQ update cleared up the issue I had, albeit indirectly.

So perhaps these are just circumstantial anecdotes. I believe others have had better luck via email for other games. I haven't heard of any answers from Runewars though.

66 Ranks

Each horizontal row of trays running the width of a unit is one rank of that unit.

66.3 A rank is partial if it contains at least one tray, but fewer trays than the front rank of the unit.

82 Threat

Threat represents a unit’s combat potency. A unit’s threat is usedwhen performing an attack and is determined by the type ofattack being performed:

82.1 When performing a melee attack, a unit’s threat is equal tothe number of trays that comprise the contacted edge.

• If the attacker has multiple contacted edges with the defender, the attacker chooses which contacted edge to use.

• If the contacted edge is shortened by a partial rank , calculate the number of trays as if the partial rank was not present.

This to me means that threat is only calculated by the back rows of the unit not the side rows… That would mean a side flank is better than a back flank.

AB1 or 1AB ABC ignores C a partial rank (since rank is only the back row, not sides) and attacks 12

C 2 2C with a threat of 1.

AB ABC has a threat of 2 here, because ignoring the partial rank of C, you still have 2 from

C AB.

1 2