Slitherine

p 57 for non-legal flank charges striking a base. In this case the BG hit in the friendly JAP phase as a pursuit. So enemy impact we fought. Then comes the word wrinkle. On page 57 the term "align" is used. Fine i understand. But now we enter the enemy manuver phase. First up conforming where there is no reference to "align"

Do you "align" in enemy manuver phase?
Personally i think so as the p 57 wording looks clear. But there is no reference to it in the manuver section or sequence of play.

It didn't really matter as it was a friendly.

If you do align in the enemy manuver phase, before or after the conforming and base sliding etc.

Yes this is a pretty esoteric rule discovery

I think the alignment would happen in the "enemy's" manoeuvre phase... this could cause all sorts of problems. He is the phasing player so he is the one who aligns with you, not you with him... which means that it is possible he would expose a flank to other troops of yours as he swings around. I've had that situation happen, and it's not pleasant

Page 70 the person who was charged would conform to you, as only the person whose maneuver phase it is ever conforms. If he cannot conform for some reason, then in your next maneuver phase you might conform to him.

Did you read p 57? It has language unrelated to conform. That is the issue.

hazelbark wrote:Did you read p 57? It has language unrelated to conform. That is the issue.

I think Page 57 is written from the frame of reference of the charger being the phasing player. Since in this particular instance the roles are reversed somewhat, so should the reference.

I see what you are saying - align vs conform. I think they are synonyms... 57 says charger aligns in the maneuver phase it doesn't say it has to be your maneuver phase - so technically you could conform when it isn't your turn in this one case. Or you could rule the other way...

Wording should be cleaned up.

Scenario 1 - I declare a (non flank) charge that contacts your side. In my manoeuvre phase I must align to you (p.57). I take this to mean I move my BG by the smallest amount necessary so that the sides of our respective BGs are parallel and in legal contact. The rules authors appear to have deliberately used the term "align" (an action taken by a charger during their manouevre phase) to distinguish it from "conform" (an action taken by the phasing player at the start of their manoeuvre phase). The two terms seem to be synonymous in terms of outcome. i.e. two opposing BGs in side to side legal contact.

Scenario 2 - during my JAP, I (non flank) pursue into your side. Its "treated as a charge". We fight the impact in your next turn. There is then an unresolved question of precedence. Which takes priority?
a. my obligation (as charger) to align with you in "the" manoeuvre phase (p. 57)
b. your obligation (as phasing player) to conform with me at the start of your manoeuvre phase (p.70)

Can't speak to author intent (probably wasn't any in regards to your question it is just something that came up), but I'd think p57 would take precedence. You would conform since you made the 'illegal' flank charge.

It seems fairer that way IMO. It wasn't actually a flank charge to force his unit to turn drastically to face. The rules on conforming go an extra mile to make sure the charger is moved to clean up the appearance of a flank when there wasn't one. This is a non-flank charge that looks like one... I think you should conform to his front even tho it is his turn.

zoltan wrote: Scenario 2 - during my JAP, I (non flank) pursue into your side. Its "treated as a charge". We fight the impact in your next turn. There is then an unresolved question of precedence. Which takes priority?
a. my obligation (as charger) to align with you in "the" manoeuvre phase (p. 57)
b. your obligation (as phasing player) to conform with me at the start of your manoeuvre phase (p.70)

Now add that the enemy who should conform can't because of other interactions. So the person who "should" conform can't. Now that is not an automatic what should happen. But in this narrow case it was not an option. So the only issue is how to resolve the "align".