| Auteur |
Message |
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1319
Localisation: London
|
 Posté le: Lun Sep 28, 2026 5:00 pm Sujet du message: |
 |
| I am not sure that this needs to be clarified further. It does however require a clear understanding of the different phases, the functions and possible interactions between each. IMO, the rules are very clear on these aspects. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1863
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Lun Sep 28, 2026 7:36 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| AlanCutner a écrit: | | Ramses II a écrit: | Indeed, conformation is mandatory. It is a game mechanic that is outside the rules on movement.  It is purely intended to align units to clarify the position for following phases of the turn.
FWIW I think this exact question was discussed some years ago, and came up with the same answer. |
If the question has been raised previously yet still creates this much confusion it seems to be a clear case of requiring official clarification (one for v5?). Not everyone follows this forum in great detail. |
The current errata document is certainly missing some topics where clarification would be helpful - however I'm not sure it is in anyones interest to have the errata expanded to spell out that rules which some people think might exist, but which do not actually appear anywhere in the rulebook, do not actually exist..
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Légat
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 640
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
| Posté le: Lun Sep 28, 2026 10:43 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Dickstick a écrit: | | Or errata |
Not convinced it is needed in this case. It is unambiguous, and the view is play as written. Ie there is no exception in the rules and do you conform
On the other hand an errata would be required if the view posted by Lionel is to be adopted |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Tribun
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 775
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 29, 2026 5:43 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Mike Bennett a écrit: | | Dickstick a écrit: | | Or errata |
Not convinced it is needed in this case. It is unambiguous, and the view is play as written. Ie there is no exception in the rules and do you conform
On the other hand an errata would be required if the view posted by Lionel is to be adopted |
My "or errata" was a little unclear in it's shortness.
It was referencing people being required to read errata between times subjects are raised.
Perhaps of no real merit to even post. Sorry
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 815
Localisation: Scotland
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 29, 2026 7:59 am Sujet du message: |
|
| As I see it any errata are for amendments to rules, whilst clarifications are helpful guidance on how existing rules are to be applied. So agreed there is no need for errata in this case. However given the level of discussion on this matter, the differing views at the start and the way we've commonly seen this mis-played, inclusion within the next set of clarifications would be helpful. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1863
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 29, 2026 9:30 am Sujet du message: |
|
| AlanCutner a écrit: | | As I see it any errata are for amendments to rules, whilst clarifications are helpful guidance on how existing rules are to be applied. So agreed there is no need for errata in this case. However given the level of discussion on this matter, the differing views at the start and the way we've commonly seen this mis-played, inclusion within the next set of clarifications would be helpful. |
I'm not convinced there are (m)any differing views on this - other than Lionel's pithy comment.
Even Andy in his original question didn't suggest or point out anything in the rules to say units don't conform in this situation - it appears in retrospect that he was actually asking if anyone else had found a rule that he'd been unable to find himself. 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Neep
Centurion
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 432
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 29, 2026 1:53 pm Sujet du message: |
|
The matter could be settled easily and concisely by changing "moves" on page 61 special cases to "conforms or moves".
A FAQ would be a very useful thing. It would isolate wordy clarifications from the published rules where that is a concern. As would regular updates to the errata and prompt rulings. Or for that matter a working search function in this forum. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
vexillia
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017
Messages: 467
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 29, 2026 4:20 pm Sujet du message: |
|
There's a inherent danger with this type of thread. The assertion that the rules are clear and nothing further is required is contradicted by the initial question. If it reoccurs regularly, or is the subject of lengthy debate, then the veracity of such assertions is plainly in doubt.
_________________
Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Légat
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 640
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 30, 2026 6:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
| vexillia a écrit: | | There's a inherent danger with this type of thread. The assertion that the rules are clear and nothing further is required is contradicted by the initial question. If it reoccurs regularly, or is the subject of lengthy debate, then the veracity of such assertions is plainly in doubt. |
For spontaneous charges you do not need to charge into a hard flank. This is clearly written as an exception. For a conformation you do need to align into a hard flank, and there is no exception. I do not see anything unclear, and so I suspect that this comes up because of a perceived inconsistency rather than a lack of clarity. Also whilst it is easy to find and read an exception sentence, and know that you have done so, when there is no exception players can wonder if it is somewhere else that they have missed. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1781
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 30, 2026 6:58 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| vexillia a écrit: | | There's a inherent danger with this type of thread. The assertion that the rules are clear and nothing further is required is contradicted by the initial question. If it reoccurs regularly, or is the subject of lengthy debate, then the veracity of such assertions is plainly in doubt. |
Disconnecting your point for this thread and taking it as a general comment. I think you are wrong. I understand the good intent of your comment, but disagree.
There are often questions by people new and trying to understand.
There are on occasion legitimate clarifications or explanations needed.
There are often people with an obtuse or worse reading or the common general bias that they feel they must be right in spite of a lifetime experience to the contrary.
Not all initial questions are of equal merit.
The trick is to weigh and evaluate with consideration. Myself included can often do with some reflection before engaging. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 201
|
| Posté le: Ven Oct 09, 2026 1:41 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Mike Bennett a écrit: | | vexillia a écrit: | | There's a inherent danger with this type of thread. The assertion that the rules are clear and nothing further is required is contradicted by the initial question. If it reoccurs regularly, or is the subject of lengthy debate, then the veracity of such assertions is plainly in doubt. |
For spontaneous charges you do not need to charge into a hard flank. This is clearly written as an exception. For a conformation you do need to align into a hard flank, and there is no exception. I do not see anything unclear, and so I suspect that this comes up because of a perceived inconsistency rather than a lack of clarity. Also whilst it is easy to find and read an exception sentence, and know that you have done so, when there is no exception players can wonder if it is somewhere else that they have missed. |
I think you mean 'uncontroled charge' rather than 'spontaneous charge' Mike. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
TamirLenk
Frondeur
Inscrit le: 08 Oct 2024
Messages: 4
|
| Posté le: Jeu Oct 29, 2026 12:56 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Green ends its turn after destroying the red unit as shown.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/4TmsgfCUWkrQAQhu8
Red begins its turn with a unit in corner/corner contact.
If Red spends no pips to move that unit (e.g., Red’s impetuous unit doesn’t have 3 CPs, etc.), it must conform. No ZOC prevents this, as Red conforms to the MTE.
At this point, Red’s frontal opponent immediately evades (p. 51), leaving Red with an enemy in flank contact.
All of this occurs during Red’s movement phase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HiWgdYpnpZTw9tkB8
Does Red fight sideways (factor 0 vs enemy factor +1 for flank) in a combat that Red initiated?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wnBPet7PGnuXEeLy8
Pg. 52 says:
“Units that have an enemy in melee on their flank or rear must turn to conform during their own movement phase unless they are already in melee with another enemy to their front.†(emphasis added)
So can/must Red conform a second time in its movement phase to comply with this rule?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/H8v7HgQMiMLsDbrp8 |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 201
|
| Posté le: Ven Oct 30, 2026 5:24 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| TamirLenk a écrit: | Green ends its turn after destroying the red unit as shown.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/4TmsgfCUWkrQAQhu8
Red begins its turn with a unit in corner/corner contact.
If Red spends no pips to move that unit (e.g., Red’s impetuous unit doesn’t have 3 CPs, etc.), it must conform. No ZOC prevents this, as Red conforms to the MTE.
At this point, Red’s frontal opponent immediately evades (p. 51), leaving Red with an enemy in flank contact.
All of this occurs during Red’s movement phase.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HiWgdYpnpZTw9tkB8
Does Red fight sideways (factor 0 vs enemy factor +1 for flank) in a combat that Red initiated?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wnBPet7PGnuXEeLy8
Pg. 52 says:
“Units that have an enemy in melee on their flank or rear must turn to conform during their own movement phase unless they are already in melee with another enemy to their front.†(emphasis added)
So can/must Red conform a second time in its movement phase to comply with this rule?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/H8v7HgQMiMLsDbrp8 |
i would say red is stuck fighting a unit on their flank (0 vs factor +1).
I'm not aware of a 'double conformation' being in the rules.
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1781
|
| Posté le: Dim Nov 01, 2026 10:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| TamirLenk a écrit: |
If Red spends no pips to move that unit (e.g., Red’s impetuous unit doesn’t have 3 CPs, etc.), it must conform. No ZOC prevents this, as Red conforms to the MTE.
At this point, Red’s frontal opponent immediately evades (p. 51), leaving Red with an enemy in flank contact.
Does Red fight sideways (factor 0 vs enemy factor +1 for flank) in a combat that Red initiated?
So can/must Red conform a second time in its movement phase to comply with this rule?
|
No. it does not conform a second time and does not quarter turn.
The sequence is the unit first fully conforms. That act is completed. It does not know what its opponent will do. After it completes its position it has concluded its actions. No where is there a provision for additional actions.
Then p51 right side 3rd bullet. This means (i know everyone knows, but i repeat for clarity) the unit(s) being conformed against then decides to evade or not.
Everything is done. Units if still in melee, fight.
This is the straightforward and to my mind clear way to read this. Consider the alternative of endless conformation:
XZYYYYYYYYYY
E
E is an elephant that routs X in X's turn. Y and Z is a long line of Light Horse.
E does not move and then conforms to Z.
Z decides to evade.
Under an (to my mind) incorrect reading of additional conforming, the Elephant keeps conforming down the line forcing all 11 of the Light horse to evade or stand in melee. Not to mention the elephant sliding 11 UD. This clearly would an error.
Because that is the straightforward and clear way to read it, there is no additional conformation allowing the unit to conform then turn to flank in a second conformation.
Honestly i think this is pretty clear. I understand the question however. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
TamirLenk
Frondeur
Inscrit le: 08 Oct 2024
Messages: 4
|
| Posté le: Dim Nov 01, 2026 10:51 pm Sujet du message: |
|
The endless conformation strikes me as a red herring. The rules don't allow/require that sort of repeated conformation.
Page 52, however, imposes a much narrower mandate and requires any unit in melee to front or rear in its movement phase to turn and face that enemy. This does not send anyone sliding wild distances but prevents conformation resulting with a unit initiating combat with its side edge.
So a conformation/evade that ends with corner contact yields no further result. But I don't think conforming should permit/force a unit to use its side/rear edge to start a melee. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
