After tray is eliminated, corner-to-corner contact?

By Zetan, in Runewars Rules Questions

Had a rules issue that I wanted to double-check with people here about. So, let's say a couple of units are engaged like this:

tOczNh0.jpg

A tray (or more) models are killed, leaving them like this:

hrdjQKg.jpg

Once that tray is removed, are the two units still engaged corner-to-corner, or does the Scion now have the option to close in (or not)?

For what it's worth, I ruled that they are no longer engaged, as once you remove the tray, there is a gap due to the separation of the connectors (since you don't interlock trays while engaged). In the above example, after taking away the empty tray, the units look like this:

rhJkXdL.jpg

Edited by Zetan

After a tray is removed, the units that were engaged with the unit that had his tray removed may perform a close in action. If they don't, then they are no longer engaged.

1 hour ago, Athelin said:

After a tray is removed, the units that were engaged with the unit that had his tray removed may perform a close in action. If they don't, then they are no longer engaged.

That presupposes that removing that tray makes them no longer in contact and engaged. I’m not saying that interpretation is wrong, but you answered the question without justification

We’ve wondered about this locally and can’t really come to a consensus. I’m curious what the RRG or FAQ has that we’ve missed.

RRG 17 Closing In:

"If two units are engaged and a game effect removes one or more trays from one of those units such that those units are no longer engaged , the unit that did not have any trays removed may close in." (Emphasis added)

If you look at the diagram for Closing In on page 22, we see the exact same situation as Zetan showed above. If the Oathsworn Cavalry were still engaged corner-to-corner, they would NOT be able to close in. I find this to be conclusive evidence that when a tray is removed such that the two units are no longer in contact along an edge, then they are no longer engaged, i.e., units can not be engaged corner-to-corner when a tray is removed.

Edited by Parakitor
9 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

RRG 17 Closing In:

"If two units are engaged and a game effect removes one or more trays from one of those units such that those units are no longer engaged , the unit that did not have any trays removed may close in." (Emphasis added)

If you look at the diagram for Closing In on page 22, we see the exact same situation as Zetan showed above. If the Oathsworn Cavalry were still engaged corner-to-corner, they would NOT be able to close in. I find this to be conclusive evidence that when a tray is removed such that the two units are no longer in contact along an edge, then they are no longer engaged, i.e., units can not be engaged corner-to-corner when a tray is removed.

100% agree.

Next question, I am curious if others are playing same way.

Next turn scions charge straight forward. We have played locally that scions front edge collides with flank and scions front edge will square up and be flanking archers.

39 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

RRG 17 Closing In:

"If two units are engaged and a game effect removes one or more trays from one of those units such that those units are no longer engaged , the unit that did not have any trays removed may close in." (Emphasis added)

If you look at the diagram for Closing In on page 22, we see the exact same situation as Zetan showed above. If the Oathsworn Cavalry were still engaged corner-to-corner, they would NOT be able to close in. I find this to be conclusive evidence that when a tray is removed such that the two units are no longer in contact along an edge, then they are no longer engaged, i.e., units can not be engaged corner-to-corner when a tray is removed.

Huh. Missed that section. Yeah, that one spells it out clearly. Thanks

1 hour ago, natertot said:

100% agree.

Next question, I am curious if others are playing same way.

Next turn scions charge straight forward. We have played locally that scions front edge collides with flank and scions front edge will square up and be flanking archers.

That's a bit uncertain. I play locally that the charge fail because they didn't collide. But if they do a March-1 then they are engaged side to side even when the charge failed.

Edited by Athelin

Colliding does not require overlap, just contact.

If the scions moved forward they would collide and be engaged side to side, they would not flank.

4 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Colliding does not require overlap, just contact.

If the scions moved forward they would collide and be engaged side to side, they would not flank.

And if they try to do a 2 or 3 march? Wouldn't they be able to pass by without colliding?

40 minutes ago, Athelin said:

And if they try to do a 2 or 3 march? Wouldn't they be able to pass by without colliding?

You can only pass thru one tray of a friendly unit. However if you turn charged I believe you would get a flank.

oh wait, I reread your question, they would pass each other as long as nothing but the nubs collided.

Edited by Jukey

I forgot I asked this at worlds. TO ruled since the front of charging tray connects with flank tab on the other tray it was a flank charge and would be squared up on the flank. Not saying this is the forever official ruling nut how it was ruled there.

5 hours ago, Athelin said:

That's a bit uncertain. I play locally that the charge fail because they didn't collide. But if they do a March-1 then they are engaged side to side even when the charge failed

There is for sure a collision before the trays are completely squared or pass each other up so I don't see how they could not have collided and be a failed charge. If you look at the picture in op you can see the tabs are going to collide. So you couldn't march past it either.

If you were to do a bank or wheel charge (sorry flesh rippers) for sure flank charge.

I’ll look around in the rrg for the specifics, but I know it’s written somewhere that when closing in, if you perform a 1-shift in a direction toward the unit, but somehow don’t collide, treat them as colliding and square up as normal. Basically saying that stuff moves when you remove trays, a 1-move is the exact same length as a tray, so no reason they shouldn’t remain in contact.

To me that same application of the rules would carry to a 1-charge the next turn, even though it’s not closing in.

Edit: 17.1, para 3.

“ The straight, speed-1 movement template moves a unit the distance of the width of a single tray. When a unit
is closing in to ll the gap left by a single tray being removed, the close in results in a collision. The gap left by the tray and the distance covered by the straight, speed-1 template are identical—even though they sometimes appear not to be as a result of trays being bumped.”

Edited by jcshep19
Found reference
On 3/19/2018 at 6:50 PM, Jukey said:

You can only pass thru one tray of a friendly unit. However if you turn charged I believe you would get a flank.

oh wait, I reread your question, they would pass each other as long as nothing but the nubs collided.

So, I was thinking about this. We often think of the "nubs" (referred to in the rulebook as connectors) as not being part of the unit for collision purposes because of 55.3, 3rd bullet point:

"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.)"

However, this bit only talks about the connectors on the moving unit. The unit they're colliding with (the "obstacle" in the above passage) is still treated normally. So moving forward, the scion will definitely collide with the connector on the side of the deepwood unit, in my original example. So the front of the scion collides with the side of the deepwood tray, resulting in a flank engagement.

Now, here's where things get interesting; if the scion does decide to close in, does this mean it can do so by moving forward?

"To close in, a unit performs a speed-1 shift action and must collide with the enemy unit it was most recently engaged with—the enemy unit that had one or more of its trays removed. If there is a collision with that unit, the unit squares up as normal, but any other game effects that are triggered when units collide are ignored."

I think this text supports it. So after killing the archers as illustrated above, it looks like the scion can turn a front engagement into a side engagement, which is a pretty big deal and not the way we've been playing; we always had the scion shift sideways to stay front-to-front, but there's nothing in the closing-in wording that requires this.

1 hour ago, Zetan said:

Now, here's where things get interesting; if the scion does decide to close in, does this mean it can do so by moving forward?

"To close in, a unit performs a speed-1 shift action and must collide with the enemy unit it was most recently engaged with—the enemy unit that had one or more of its trays removed. If there is a collision with that unit, the unit squares up as normal, but any other game effects that are triggered when units collide are ignored."

I think this text supports it. So after killing the archers as illustrated above, it looks like the scion can turn a front engagement into a side engagement, which is a pretty big deal and not the way we've been playing; we always had the scion shift sideways to stay front-to-front, but there's nothing in the closing-in wording that requires this.

Funny story: I had a huge post typed up about Closing In, but I scrapped it and sent it in as a rules question instead. We've always played that you could choose to move sideways or forward. Forward makes a lot more sense because you are actually closing in, but nothing has indicated that you would reform, so neither of you are flanking. This ruling that "hitting the connectors results in a flank charge" could change that, but I'm not sure. I would bet that colliding connector-to-connector on the side would result in a side-by-side engagement, but if it was a charge, would the attack go off? Anyway, I think that we need more diagrams demonstrating how Closing In works.

18 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

Funny story: I had a huge post typed up about Closing In, but I scrapped it and sent it in as a rules question instead. We've always played that you could choose to move sideways or forward. Forward makes a lot more sense because you are actually closing in, but nothing has indicated that you would reform, so neither of you are flanking. This ruling that "hitting the connectors results in a flank charge" could change that, but I'm not sure. I would bet that colliding connector-to-connector on the side would result in a side-by-side engagement, but if it was a charge, would the attack go off? Anyway, I think that we need more diagrams demonstrating how Closing In works.

Let's explore this. So, the trays were aligned on the front. This means the unit's left/right sides are perfectly aligned:

6O2c9YK.jpg

This means that when moving forward, the first part of the unit to make contact is actually the corner:

PJz8FIj.jpg

If we assume this is a collision, it would result in a choice between a flank and front charge. If we assume it isn't and the unit keeps moving, it will end up like this:

jUwtZIk.jpg

This is definitely a collision, even if the units were very slightly farther apart. And it is definitely a collision between the front of the scion and the side of the archers.

That still leaves open the question about connectors when not closing in. Say that Scion was facing a little more toward the camera so that its fron misses the Archers' connector, but its own connector hits the front of the Archers. Let's also assume this was a charge. You can nudge the unit, but it appears that you do not have to. Is that connector considered the side of the Scion? Does it square up with its side along the front of the Deepwood Archers? That's how I would rule it, but it's a very strange situation.

On 3/21/2018 at 3:11 PM, Budgernaut said:

That still leaves open the question about connectors when not closing in. Say that Scion was facing a little more toward the camera so that its fron misses the Archers' connector, but its own connector hits the front of the Archers. Let's also assume this was a charge. You can nudge the unit, but it appears that you do not have to. Is that connector considered the side of the Scion? Does it square up with its side along the front of the Deepwood Archers? That's how I would rule it, but it's a very strange situation.

It's true, the rule does say "can." I have no idea what happens there if you choose not to.

I really dislike that they use the word "can" at all, honestly. "May" denotes an optional action much more clearly, and they do use it sometimes (mostly on unit cards).