Art De La Guerre

[Zoltan]

Well I don’t like it. Effectively creates a vortex of death for simple supporters who lose their neighbours in the enemy’s turn, and run out of CP in their next turn. It’s completely inconsistent with the uncontrolled charge exemption to rush into a jaws of death.

I’m simply going to ignore Ramses’ opinion on this and play it like Andy’s ruling - no obligation to conform into a hard flank jaws of death. Not that it happens often on the table.

[Ramses II]

I sympathise with the sentiment Zoltan, but them’s the rules as they say. 

But you are correct that it will be unusual for a melee to have this result and then to be unable (or unwilling) to avoid the ‘trap’. 

[Zoltan]

[Ramses II]

[Hazelbark]

[Mike Bennett]

[Neep]

The rules are clear, but maybe some philosophical perspective would be helpful.
If you force impetuous to charge into bad situations, the defender will no longer be trying to string them out but will be setting up flank traps left and right.
Conformance doesn't represent a coherent decision. It's a game mechanism abstraction to keep the melees going in a resolvable fashion. A decision to charge, even by impetuous, represents a deliberate choice.
The quandary arises in part because this happens during the ABC turn. If it happened in the XY turn, then the end result would be the same so long as ABC had the CP to spare. A chance to disengage is a better outcome.
At the end of the day a 3 to 2 hard flank has become a 2 to 1 hard flank. X is going to be hammered.

[Zoltan]

Making an uncontrolled charge is, by definition, a game mechanism that automatically occurs when a “deliberate decision” to do something else can not occur due to insufficient CP. (Yes, I realise you can “deliberately decide” to engineer things to force an uncontrolled charge to proceed).

There’s an explicit exemption that prevents the uncontrolled charge game mechanism applying in a jaws of death situation.

For consistency, the conformation game mechanism should be exempted from applying in a jaws of death situation.

Simply play it that way (per the ruling Andy received in his OP), or expand the previous p51 errata to make the exemption explicit.

[Ramses II]

Please stop referring to an uncontrolled charge. Units in contact with an enemy that conform are not considered to be charging by definition (special cases p42).

The problem with your suggestion is that normal troops in this situation (in corner contact without CP to move elsewhere), will also be forced to conform into the jaws of death. RAW, Impetuous units without CP are also required to conform. 

Without CP, ANY units in contact MUST conform (P51) It is unfortunate that in this case, doing so puts the conforming unit at a disadvantage. 

Allowing impetuous units to avoid this breaks the rules as written. 

[Zoltan]

@Ramses - I’m simply using the uncontrolled charge rules as an example of where the rule writer has made it clear that he doesn’t want units to be sucked into a jaws of death situation.

My view is that the possibility of a conformer being sucked into a jaws of death situation was probably not fully considered when the latest errata was drafted, and therefore needs further attention to ensure jaws of death sucking is treated consistently throughout the rules.

Rather than shrugging our shoulders and moping “them’s the rules”, I think we need to call it out - the Emperor has no clothes!

Capiche?

[Ramses II]

I think we do understand each other. 
We agree that units not in contact should not be forced to enter the jaws of death - normal units need not charge, and the exception for impetuous units allows them to choose. Units already in contact are compelled to conform if they cannot move away, both normal and impetuous. 

However, I disagree with you over El Kreator’s intent. He has made the distinction between these two situations very clear, irrespective of the unit type, so the rules really do not need  correction or further clarification. 

[Zoltan]

[Ramses II]

Ok, we have now strayed far enough off-topic. 
I will pm you. 

[Hazelbark]