Josh was at GenCon this weekend and had a chance to ask Brooks some rules questions. Most of them came back as expected, but there was one that didn't jive with the way we've been playing. I wasn't there to ask for more details, so I wanted to post here to see if I can get a more detailed explanation (possibly with an errata to the rules, if it's meant to work the way it was ruled). I've talked about this in an old thread, but I'm reposting the relevant pictures here so I can submit a question to the submission form with the pictures.

Okay, so, the question is about closing in. So let's say this scion has finished off a tray of archers like so:

Once you remove the empty tray, they are no longer engaged and the Scion can choose to close in. So far, all matches up with the ruling.

So, let's say the Scion chooses to close in by shifting forward. Brooks ruled that it can do so, but it ends up engaged side-to-side. I don't see how this can possibly be the case. Let's jump to the RRG

Quote

17.1 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.

Okay, so we're looking for a collision. If the scion moves straight forward, it should collide either with the corner of the unit or, that failing, with the connector, as shown on one of the two pictures below:

The only way you could possibly not have a collision in one of those two ways is if you could ignore the enemy's connectors, but the RRG only talks about ignoring the moving unit's connectors, not the enemy. Under movement, 55.3, bullet point 3:

Quote

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.)

(This bit also uses the word "can," which is my least favorite word in the entirety of this game's rules, as it sometimes seems to indicate a choice and other times doesn't. I'd prefer if all instances of "can" were replaced with either "may" or "must" to make these clear whether they're an option or not. Maybe we'll get errata someday...)

Anyway, since it doesn't say anything about the connectors on the obstacle, just on the moving unit, I'm going to assume that connectors on the obstacle are considered, and the unit has collided. So now 17.1 tells us to square up as normal. Let's check out the squaring up rules.

Quote

77.1 To square up his unit, the player pivots his unit around the point of contact with the enemy unit until the squaring-up unit’s front edge is parallel with the enemy unit’s contacted edge for that engagement. Then, the player slides the squaring-up unit in either direction of his choice along the contacted edge, stopping at the first opportunity for the trays of the moving unit to be aligned with the trays of the enemy unit.

This text specifically calls out the front edge of the squaring-up unit and the contacted edge of the enemy unit. To me, this says that you should pivot toward the enemy unit, and end up with your front squared up to their side. A flanking engagement. The only time the rules allow for you to square up using anything aside from your front edge is a short bit later:

Quote

77.3 If a unit is moving backward or sideways, the edge of that unit that was aligned with the start and end guides of the movement template are treated as that unit’s front edge for the purposes of squaring up.

But the unit wasn't moving backwards or sideways. It was moving forward. Therefore, there should be no way to square up using the side of the unit. Have I missed something?

My only thought concerns connectors and obstacles. Your unit's connector hits the opposing connector, but the opposing connector isn't treated as a connector, but as an obstacle on that case, since it's connected to the entirety of the tray.

Also agree on your assessment of "can"

2 minutes ago, rebellightworks said:

Your unit's connector hits the opposing connector

Except that it doesn't, look at the images again. Your unit's front edge hits their connector. Assuming it makes it that far, that's a clear-cut collision, assuming their connector is an obstacle.

I really think the first collision is actually when your corner hits their corner. The units are touching at that point; moving forward any farther would be sliding your unit along theirs, which the rules do not allow for. The first point of contact, you're supposed to square up. If your corner hits their corner, you use these rules:

Quote

77.2 If the front edge of a moving unit collides with a corner of an enemy unit, a player aligns the right angle on the base of the range ruler with the contacted corner of the enemy unit so that the range ruler is aimed over the moving unit. Then, he determines the number of the moving unit’s trays on each side of the range ruler, not counting any trays the range ruler passes over. If one side has more trays on it than the other, the moving unit must pivot in that direction. If both sides have the same number of trays, the player who controls the moving unit chooses which direction to pivot the unit.

Obviously in this case, the only tray would be under the range ruler, so you would be allowed to choose which direction to pivot. This would allow you to pivot into a flank engagement, assuming you want to do so.

Wouldn't the corner tip of the Scion tray still be in contact with the corner of the tray from the archers? I've played it as you would do a shift to close in/square up in front of the archers

I think closing in needs to be treated as it's own separate rule and not use standard collision rules. If the original picture it moved forward and was turned to flank, by the same logic if you wanted to square up and move the scion to the side e you would actually have the scion turned so the archers flank the scion and that definitely doesn't feel right.

34.3 I think explains the ruling. When you close in forward in the picture, your side becomes the contacting edge.

In the second picture the scion collides with only its side touching the side of the deepwoods, making the contacting edge the side, therefore, squares up side to side.

10 minutes ago, Jukey said:

34.3 I think explains the ruling. When you close in forward in the picture, your side becomes the contacting edge.

In the second picture the scion collides with only its side touching the side of the deepwoods, making the contacting edge the side, therefore, squares up side to side.

But wouldn't the two corner tips already be in contact?

1 minute ago, Darkjawa said:

But wouldn't the two corner tips already be in contact?

No, corner to corner as a result of trays being removed is unengaged. If you laser lined the units up again after removing trays, the close in would result in pic 2.

I just re-read that in the rulebook. It says you perform a speed one shift to close in, so in the picture in this post the Scion could go either way to close in.

@Zetan i'm totally on-board with your interpretation of the rules. I think Brooks' ruling is more widely accepted and intuitive, but does not match the rules as written. As I see it, a close-in with a forward shift should result in a flanking position for the unit that closed in.

Funny, I've always played it the way Brooks ruled it.

Side bar -- is the Scion allowed to shift right and get a collision?

2 minutes ago, Glucose98 said:

Side  b  ar -- is the Scion allowed to shift right and get a collision?

Another topic of debate. Most people accept that it can shift sideways. I would say a collision occurs because the Scion was not in contact before the shift to close in, and is touching after the shift. Now, by Brooks' ruling, it would stay facing forward, but by the rules as written, the sideways shift should result in a reform so its right side is touching the archers' front.

9 hours ago, Glucose98 said:

Funny, I've always played it the way Brooks ruled it.

Side bar -- is the Scion allowed to shift right and get a collision?

Yes, you may close in sideways as well, and since it is your front edge sliding along the archers front, the front edge is the contacted edge.

3 hours ago, Jukey said:

Yes, you may close in sideways as well, and since it is your front edge sliding along the archers front, the front edge is the contacted edge.

A collision reauires you to square up. The Squaring Up rules say,

77.3 If a unit is moving backward or sideways, the edge of that
unit that was aligned with the start and end guides of the
movement template are treated as that unit’s front edge for
the purposes of squaring up.

So while the physical front edge is the contacted edge immediately after the shift, the right side is treated as the front edge for the purposes of squaring up, meaning you must rotate the Scion until its "front edge" (actually the right edge) is contacting and aligned with the archers' front edge.

2 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

A collision reauires you to square up. The Squaring Up rules say,

77.3 If a unit is moving backward or sideways, the edge of that
unit that was aligned with the start and end guides of the
movement template are treated as that unit’s front edge for
the purposes of squaring up.

So while the physical front edge is the contacted edge immediately after the shift, the right side is treated as the front edge for the purposes of squaring up, meaning you must rotate the Scion until its "front edge" (actually the right edge) is contacting and aligned with the archers' front edge.

Really? Because when I put my movement template down to shift sideways, I put the template down to align with my front edge, so wouldn't that be treated as my front edge? Even worse, in this situation I couldn't put the template aligned to my front edge because the enemy unit is in the way, so I have to align my template to the back of my unit. So arbitrarily the back of my unit is now its front?? ?

This isn't a jab at you or anybody else in this thread, but I've been saying for a long time that the rules for Closing In (and now apparently the rules for Squaring Up) desperately need to be rewritten.

So if I am closing in on the flank, I can either:

-Choose that I am putting my template on top of the enemy tray (requiring us to mark it, or agree that I am doing it that way), and close in facing the way I was

OR

-Choose to put my template on the side opposite the enemy unit, close in, then square up facing the same way as the enemy unit?

I'm in!

3 hours ago, Budgernaut said:

A collision reauires you to square up. The Squaring Up rules say,

77.3 If a unit is moving backward or sideways, the edge of that
unit that was aligned with the start and end guides of the
movement template are treated as that unit’s front edge for
the purposes of squaring up.

So while the physical front edge is the contacted edge immediately after the shift, the right side is treated as the front edge for the purposes of squaring up, meaning you must rotate the Scion until its "front edge" (actually the right edge) is contacting and aligned with the archers' front edge.

I think that's for if you shift sideways into a unit. That's not what is happening here.

The connectors are part of a side and do not create a corner. So even though it's the right side that collides with the connector, the front edge is in contact with the archers, making it the contacting edge, making it your front edge.

Closing in sideways should be seen the same as a 1 tray unit shifting sideways along a 2 or 3 tray unit, it works the same. They slide along the other units edge while staying in contact. No square up occurs because they already are.

1 hour ago, Parakitor said:

Really? Because when I put my movement template down to shift sideways, I put the template down to align with my front edge, so wouldn't that be treated as my front edge? Even worse, in this situation I couldn't put the template aligned to my front edge because the enemy unit is in the way, so I have to align my template to the back of my unit. So arbitrarily the back of my unit is now its front?? ?

This isn't a jab at you or anybody else in this thread, but I've been saying for a long time that the rules for Closing In (and now apparently the rules for Squaring Up) desperately need to be rewritten.

It says " the edge of that unit that was aligned with the start and end guides." While you could place the template against the front or rear, that is not the part you align with the start and end guides. In the picture above, you are lining up the right side with the start guides to make sure you don't move to far or too short. You line the front with the end guides to make sure it moves exactly 1 speed unit. Again, the "alignment" refers to lining up the guide with the edge that is moving.

On 8/5/2018 at 8:31 AM, Zetan said:

(This bit also uses the word "can," which is my least favorite word in the entirety of this game's rules, as it sometimes seems to indicate a choice and other times doesn't. I'd prefer if all instances of "can" were replaced with either "may" or "must" to make these clear whether they're an option or not. Maybe we'll get errata someday...)

Well, I just found something interesting. I didn't realize that X-wing Second Edition had posted the Rules Reference a week ago, and what do you know: they have a section in there about "may," "can," and "must."

Quote

Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”

The word “may” is used to mean “has the option to.” For example, an ability that says “At the start of the Engagement Phase, you may perform a ? action,” means that the ship has the option to perform the action, but can also decline.

The word “can” is used to mean “has the capacity to.” For example, an ability that says “While you boost or barrel roll, you can move through and overlap obstacles” means when a ship with this ability boosts or barrel rolls, it ignores the rules that prevents them from overlapping or moving through obstacles. The ship always applies this effect as the effect is not optional but instead an expanded capability.

The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory, the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect.

If we applied this definition of "can" to the rules about Movement in 55.3 of the Rules Reference, we discover that what they mean is that all units have the capability of nudging to the side so a unit's connectors do not collide with an obstacle, overriding rules that say you must move straight along movement templates. This doesn't at all help to address your question, but I wouldn't be surprised to see these same definitions for "can," "may," and "must" included in a future edition of our Runewars Miniaturs Game Rules Reference.

So "can" basically means "must" but is used instead of must in situations where doing so would normally break the rules? I guess I could see that working in most instances of "can" in the rules.