Art De La Guerre

[Neep]

No lost point, it's a special case exception on page 61.
This sort of thing has been bruited about before. It's a game mechanism to keep the mayhem going. No point in talking "reality".-)

[Zoltan]

Unit 1 starts in contact with enemy A but outside all enemy ZoCs. Unless it moves away or charges another enemy, p.51 requires unit 1 to conform to enemy A.

As soon unit 1 starts wheeling a gnat's todger towards enemy A, it enters enemy B's ZoC.

The P.51 errata is clear: "When a unit must conform to enemy A but is also in the ZOC of another enemy B, it must respect the ZOC of B as a priority and is therefore no longer required to conform to A or make a move to break contact with A. It may remain in contact with enemy A without moving."

[Andy Fyfe]

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

Well, Mark, I have two bits of good news.

The first is even if you conform to a position where you are flanked, you do not lose a cohesion. All you do is fight set to zero.  See the first bullet of special cases on page 61.

The second bit of good news it’s always possible that I’m wrong.  I don’t think so, but it’s always possible and happens a lot on here.

For my friend Zoltan, I think you are misunderstanding the Errata on page 51.  Stephen, this bullet is intended to cover the situation where a conformation would cause a unit to leave the ZOC of an enemy.  But in our situation, the unit does not start in a ZOC.

If for example, it were in the ZOC of a different enemy, say to its rear, then of course it would not conform - it would remain in place.

As a thought experiment ask yourself what would happen if the unit moved into the corner to quarter contact as indicated.  It’s pretty clear to me that in this situation it would conform.

Anyway, Mark, looking forward to meeting you in Lisbon next week. Perhaps we’ll have a game since we’re in the same period

[Mark G Fry]

[Zoltan]

@Steve, thanks.

I don’t think we can say that the p.51 errata “was intended” ONLY to apply to conforming units that initially start within a ZoC. The p.35 rules about movements allowed in a ZoC state that they apply when a unit is (already) in, OR ENTERS, one or more enemy ZoCs including when conforming.

So taking account of ZoCs is a dynamic thing and not only a one-off point in time assessment.This appears to be precisely Andy’s OP situation - a unit enters multiple ZoCs while attempting to conform.
 
As soon as the conformer enters a ZoC the p.52 errata then kicks in: although you MUST conform with A, you’re also now in B’s ZoC which takes priority. So ignore the MUST conform rule and stay where you are.

This is also consistent with the p.51 conforming rule qualifier that indicates that in some situations it may temporarily NOT be possible to resolve a conformation of units in contact but unable to melee/support.

[KevinD]

[Three]

Related query for my understanding of the situation - there was talk up thread about A exerting a zoc on 1 as soon as it moves to conform, and therefore becoming the MTE, allowing B's zoc to be ignored.
Does A have a zoc in this instance?
My understanding is that conformation under these circumstances is a mechanism to allow the continuation of a melee. Irrespective of whether A or B is conformed to, it is not a new combat, so all 1st round benefits do not apply etc.
That suggests to me that A and 1 are already engaged in combat, so A cannot then have A zoc and any movement by 1 must respect B's zoc. This follows the quoted amendment and was the basis for my initial response that 1 doesn't move under these circumstances.

Whilst 1 not moving appears to be the consensus, I want to clarify whether A has a zoc and whether I got the consensus answer but for the wrong reasons?

[KevinD]

@Three, A would have a ZOC until 1 is in melee against it, or until B becomes the MTE (as only the MTE actually exerted a ZOC). Essentially A and B are competing to be the MTE and force 1 to conform to themselves.

[Zoltan]

The errata is proscriptive - if you are in/enter the ZoC of another (enemy B) unit DO NOT CONFORM with the enemy unit you are touching.

It clearly states (regardless of whether or not it exerts a ZoC, or is MTE) that the other ZoCer (enemy B) is the priority ZoC.

[KevinD]

Interesting point Zoltan. But p 35 ( MTE) says only one unit actually has a ZOC. The errata could be read as saying in those instances where B is that one enemy with the MTE, you have to respect B’s ZOC. I don’t think it says that B can have a ZOC if A is the MTE. But it’s certainly a debatable point.

Official clarification would help here IMO.

[Neep]

There is a misunderstanding of the erratum. It came out of a discussion about the requirement to resolve the non-melee contact. It was always understood that a unit in the MTE's ZoC could not conform to a different enemy. The question was whether this forced the unit to move or charge, and how that would be paid for if CPs were in short supply? The erratum answers that question - it no longer has an obligation to resolve the contact.

Here, Unit 1 is not in the ZoC of either A nor B, and as soon as it starts to pivot into conformance with A, it is both the ZoC of A and B but A is closer. Therefore, A is the MTE, we ignore B's ZoC, and complete the conformation.

---

It is perversely difficult to ever be prevented from conforming to a front edge because of another enemy's ZoC. Flank/rear contact is a different story.

[Zoltan]

The p.51 errata is proscriptive and clear: if you must conform to A, but you are in B's ZoC, do nothing.

In attempting to conform to A, unit 1 enters B's ZoC. Do nothing.

[Zoltan]

It’s not clear if unit 1 already has a cohesion hit from it’s friend routing in the last enemy turn. But even without that, to me it seems perverse to insist on it being sucked into the jaws of death by conforming to enemy A with enemy B now in a melee support position (assuming it can’t move away etc).

This feels like a very gamey “gotcha” style of interpretation, when the conformation rules clearly envisage that there will be some situations where conforming to enable melee may not be possible.

I’ll be playing it like Andy if it comes up amongst my group of friendly players.