A few questions about what counts and what doesn't. Please see the attached diagram.

i) In diagram 1 both A and B are in contact with E. Only one can fight of course but it seems intuitively sensible that the other could at least be a supporting file. However, assuming that "next to" in paragraph I1 at the top of page 146 means that two files need to be touching for one to count as supporting, then neither can support the other. Is this correct.  It would also seem that blue cannot align as it would mean bumping one of his UGs out of combat.

ii) In diagram 2 if A and B are in the same UG then it seems obvious that B can be a supporting file by pretending the combat is aligned. However, if they're in different UGs and blue was to actually align A to E then obviously B would not be in a supporting position. If they are in different UGs and blue does not align the combat, can B count as a supporting file for A.

iii) If A were aligned to E then B would be in a position to be a supporting file. I assume it cannot count as such because it is not "next to" A. Is this correct.

iv) Diagram 4 doesn't matter unless I'm wrong about 3.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Now let us wai for the the MEG Meister so says the Belgian Prophet

Page 146 in the Compendium defines a Supporting File very precisely.  If you read it carefully, particularly paragraph 3.,  it actually answers the questions.

Richard

I've read it carefully several times. My issue is with 3.4 "or be in such a position that aligning would have resulted in the above situation". What aligns? the supporting column, the column being supported, the UG that contains both of them, the enemy in contact ?. The most obvious reading would be that it's the supporting column, but then we hit the problem that aligning as defined in 9.5B doesn't allowing lining up in a supporting position. If it's the column being supported, then actually aligning that has differing results depending or whether or not supported and supporting files are in the same UG.

I think it's played such that B can count as an overlap in diagram 2, but if so I'd like to have a consistent rules interpretation to allow it. If it isn't allowed it seems to allow some gamey deliberately being mis-aligned.

Now it is on the forum I repeat my answers so we can check

I ) A and B cannot give support . The blue player when phasing may choose A or B to fight and if the red player is phasing he chooses to fight A or B .( pg 141 but one question, the phasing player chooses each turn or should it be definitive till one dies  )

II ) B cannot support A

III ) B cannot support A ( but could align latter to be to the front of E so if that happens it can either fight or support )

I did not find back the following in the compendium : it was said that if for some reason you could not conform, you could fight as if conformed . So if we go PG 136, and take the drawning at the bottom right . The leftmost gallic warriors fight the romans in the flank but cannot conform . So the fight as if conformed ! but then could the flanking file get support from the leftmost file  which is unengaged ...( if the fight as if conformed )

Questions in the answers 

Thanks Bob.

All good questions. Alignment is the pain in the butt for rules.  You want it to tidy the table.  If you force it very bad side effects.  If you don't have it all rather difficult unless you have no benefit from supporting files.  Hence the optional solution and not clogging the rulebook with a tome on it.  But the principle is that it shouldn't matter to the outcome.

It is also more interesting in Pacto, rather than Magna and Maximus.  In the latter we don't get columns and E always has a neighbour - and then it's easier.

So as RJC says the definition of supporting file is quite specific in 3.1-3.3.  This actually defines the conditions.

3.1. In front corner or at least partial side-edge contact with an enemy file that its neighbour
is fighting.
3.2. Be aligned parallel to the file it is supporting and be facing in the same direction.
3.3. If beyond the fight, have its front within 1BW of the line of fighting.
3.4. Or be in such a position that aligning would have resulted in the above situations.

So you are spot on that the issue is the sweep up clause on aligning. My intent always is to allow more fighting than less so in terms of  your diagram.  B fails at 3.1 and 3,2 and cannot align in any form that makes it count.   You get a choice of A or B s the benefit as Jacques mentioned.

Aligning is a general term rather than having specific subjects as my intent was that if any alignment - by either party - created 3.1 and 3.2 then it fights.  As you say interesting gamey side effects if not.  So if a sensible tidy up would make it fit 3.1-3.3 its in.

I think I need to issue a clarry for it.  But hold on it going firm until it is up there as I always want to gather feedback on it first as easy too create yet more side effects.  And this is the perfect area to mess up.

Thus draft answer is ...
1 not possible
2 if E aligned with A then all works.  Note also A could align to E in movement and B get to an actual overlap using the universal shift and snap to grid allowed to create a simple position.
3 If A aligned to E it works so B counts.
4. Is the interesting one, as you are quite right it does say you can align a supporting file, but probably should (I have feeling it was in the old clarries and I missed putting it in somehow). So let me mull that one over tomorrow.  My ideal outcome is that both C and B fight and well done for getting so much supporting file in place. But I think it may be that I need an errata sayings hat you can align supporting files with owhen aligning other troops - such that C can align with A because it thereby becomes a supporting file.

Gotta love alignment ... 

Si

Thanks Simon, a tricky issue as you say. Look forward to the official clarification, and in the meantime we'll go with a liberal interpretation of what can support then.

Good plan as without doubt the spirit I am aiming for.

Si

Quote2 if E aligned with A then all works.  Note also A could align to E in movement and B get to an actual overlap using the universal shift and snap to grid allowed to create a simple position.

If B is another TUG , without "moving" it could shift 1/2 base to be a supporting file ? correct ?

+


I did not find back the following in the compendium : it was said that if for some reason you could not conform, you could fight as if conformed . So if we go PG 136, and take the drawning at the bottom right . The leftmost gallic warriors fight the romans in the flank but cannot conform . So the fight as if conformed ! but then could the flanking file get support from the leftmost file  which is unengaged ...( if the fight as if conformed )

It would have to pay for a move to use the 1/2BW shift.

No that isn't there.  The "if alignment would" clause was its better replacement.

Si

Ok but do they give support or not ? If not it is easy as we follow the rule as written and so be it !

Simon a definitive written answer ?

Already been in the clarries for a few days.
Sorry forgot to mention.

Si