Conforming

[lawrenceg]

My opponent had a BG in column, with the front two elements facing at 90 degrees to the rest. This column did an intercept flank charge on one of my BG. The front two elements moved a very short distance to contact, so the column still had a kink in it.

As I was the active player, my BG had to conform by turning to face the flank attack. The kinked column remained as it was.

Is this right?

[rbodleyscott]

My opponent had a BG in column, with the front two elements facing at 90 degrees to the rest. This column did an intercept flank charge on one of my BG. The front two elements moved a very short distance to contact, so the column still had a kink in it.

As I was the active player, my BG had to conform by turning to face the flank attack. The kinked column remained as it was.

Is this right?

Your contacted bases had to turn 90 degrees when contacted. Battle groups who are facing in 2 directions don't conform, so you did not have to conform. Reforming to all face the enemy is optional. (This is to stop people forcing a BG to all face with a flank charge, then counting another flank charge when another BG that was to their previous front charges).

The kinked column could also optionally reform.

[lawrenceg]

My opponent had a BG in column, with the front two elements facing at 90 degrees to the rest. This column did an intercept flank charge on one of my BG. The front two elements moved a very short distance to contact, so the column still had a kink in it.

As I was the active player, my BG had to conform by turning to face the flank attack. The kinked column remained as it was.

Is this right?

Your contacted bases had to turn 90 degrees when contacted. Battle groups who are facing in 2 directions don't conform, so you did not have to conform. Reforming to all face the enemy is optional. (This is to stop people forcing a BG to all face with a flank charge, then counting another flank charge when another BG that was to their previous front charges).

The kinked column could also optionally reform.

Just checked the conforming rules:

The top paragraph says " must "
The bullet for flank/rear charges says "do not".
Neither of these gives me an option. They require me to do two mutually excusive things. The bold text in the main paragraph looks as though it is supposed to take precedence, although that means the bullet doesn't make sense.

I agree, there is an option to reform facing the flank. Reforming is not the same as conforming.

The kinked column is a legal normal formation. You can only reform if you are NOT in a normal formation, so there is no option to reform the kinked column.

[rbodleyscott]

Just checked the conforming rules:

The top paragraph says " must

But the later bullet is an exception.

• A battle group that has some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear) does not conform to enemy.

If you feel this is unclear, we could say "Must (unless otherwise stated below)". However, I feel that is is already clear that the bullet represents an exception. What other meaning could it have? (And what meaning could the last bullet have?)

The kinked column is a legal normal formation. You can only reform if you are NOT in a normal formation, so there is no option to reform the kinked column.

Fair enough. Seems OK to me.

[lawrenceg]

Just checked the conforming rules:

The top paragraph says " must

But is it qualified by an exception in the later bullet.

• A battle group that has some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear) does not conform to enemy.

If you feel this is unclear, we can say "Must (except as below)"/

I suggest you make that change, because a bold "must" looks as though it's not meant to have any exceptions.

The kinked column is a legal normal formation. You can only reform if you are NOT in a normal formation, so there is no option to reform the kinked column.

Fair enough. Is there any reason why this would matter?

No, I don't think it would matter.