Art De La Guerre

[KevinD]

Suppose you have a unit (X) which starts your movement in simple support of a friend (Y) but that friend then disengages (breaks off) leaving your unit (X) in corner to corner or side edge to side edge contact with the enemy. Does your unit (X) now conform in this turn as it’s in corner to corner or edge to edge with an enemy and not providing support or does it not conform as it began the turn in a simple support position?

Start Turn (X, Y = Friends, Z = Enemy)

Z
YX

After Y disengages

Z
..X
Y


Does X conform to Z this move?

[Dickstick]

If it fails to move off it conforms.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[KevinD]

Thank you, but
Why?

I’m not sure your answer comports with the wording used in the rules.

P 51 “Conforming units already in contact

“Due to melee results or movements IN THE PREVIOUS SEQUENCE, a unit may still be in contact with an enemy without being either in melee or in a position to support a friend in melee….”

What does “in the previous sequence” mean?

P 23 defines a “Sequence”

“A game turn consists of two sequences, one per player. Each player-sequence is then divided into several phases.”

This seems to read as if a “sequence” is defined as either the attacker’s or defender’s half of the turn and that conformation of existing contacts is only done if after such a previous “sequence” there is an a contact not resulting in melee or support and not if the actions in the current “sequence” leave such a situation. (Here I’m only talking about “Conforming units already in melee”, there are of course other types of conformations such as conforming to an enemy after charging them, moving into a support position or after pursuit.” - but these don’t apply here.)

Or does the phrase “in the previous sequence” mean something else, such as just being an awkward and verbose way to say “previously”?

[Dickstick]

You are correct in your working through the interpretation.
We always need to be mindful that the rules are written in French and translated.
Taking things literally is a minefield of its own.

I used a US learn French tape to get the bill for coffee.
I was told to use "billet" , waiters looked at me questioningly (in Paris as if I was a complete idiot) .
Next year using a British tape I changed to "l'addition' worked a treat.

The french have a loose connection to individual words better linked in whole sentence. So the British were/are regarded as picky when we wanted clarification of stuff in v3. V4 was much better translated for the English Market.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Ramses II]

[KevinD]

Thanks!

I’d love to see this included in a future errata. Maybe just change “in the previous sequence” to “previously”.

[Neep]

They could disengage as a group, and since they do not, it suggests they intend to engage in melee, and this ruling is to their benefit.