Rules for Review.

[rogerg]

There are some of us to whom the words mean something different. We also know that at least one diagram in the book is incorrect (moving back burst through troops). Some of us also understand the arguments you are using as well. We are hoping that the authors will describe their intentions in a different way.

[nikgaukroger]

FWIW where the rules wording and a diagram disagree I would go with the wording - much experience over many rule sets has demonstrated to me that it is almost always the diagram that is wrong.

[ValentinianVictor]

FWIW where the rules wording and a diagram disagree I would go with the wording - much experience over many rule sets has demonstrated to me that it is almost always the diagram that is wrong.

The only problem with this Nik is that pedants will state that diagrams have as much weight as the rule they are depicting, and therefore if one contradicts the other which takes precedence?
I'm with you on this, the rule as WRITTEN is the one you obey, the diagram is there just as an aide memoire.

[gozerius]

I disagree. The rule as written is entirely consistant with the diagram if the term "necessary" is used in the sense of "that which must be by reason of its inherent qualities". There is no argument that the shortest adjustment necessary is to the right in the absence of the blocking enemy BG. The sticking point is whether that is a universal quality, or, as you seem to imply, it is purely situationally based. That is, the inherent quality of the minimum adjustment in the shift to the right is somehow cancelled by the external factor of the blocking BG. I read the rule the same way that the diagram portrays. The inherently shortest adjustment is physically impossible, therefore the BG in question remains in place and fights as if it had indeed conformed right. This distinction is extremely important as it relates to the immediately following melee phase because the bases that you conform to are the ones that you will fight for the duration of the melee. It is simply not a reasonable expectation that a base that is 95% covering a base will be forced to slide to the next base over because it can't quite fully conform. In the section on fighting when not lined up, the rules specifically state that the unaligned BGs fight "with the same bases counting as in full front edge contact or overlap as if conformed". This implies that there is only one way to correctly determine where a base should align, and that is by determining the inherently shortest adjustment to conform. Using a definition that only considers adjustments that are physically possible means nothing that isn't in a fully conformed position is allowed to fight. You have to be universally consistant. If an inherently minimal adjustment can be rejected for being physically impossible for the purposes of determining whether to conform or not, then it must be applied in the same way during the melee phase when dealing with BGs that were physically unable to conform. Unconformed BGs then do not fight at all until there is an opportunity to fully conform.
Is that what you are saying? Please explain.