Pursuers hitting another enemy, I had no choice in how I contacted.

In the charge phase it's easy, 2 bases vs 2 bases.

In the melee is it 3 vs 3 or 2 vs 2 with both sides "overlapping" each other on the same flank. I think 3 vs 3 but was struggling to find the rule.

IMO 2 vs 2 with each side have a supporting file on the same flank. You only fight with files that are in contact - only supporting files can be claimed as if alignment had taken place. (As I don't think there is actually a proper definition of combat, oddly, it is also on my possible FAQ list)

OK, I got that one wrong but it didn't make any real difference.

The 2 vs 2 with mutual same side overlap is a logical extension of the rules but felt odd.

It is an odd one as if the bases in contact had aligned you'd expect the one not in contact to then be in contact - I can certainly see the argument that it should be 3 vs 3, and I'm sure somebody will argue for it 

I agree with Nik.  If I was umpiring I would rule it as a 2x2 with an overlap fpr both.

This is an odd one, but I don't think the suggested ruling is consistent with the qualification for being a supporting file – Rule 9.5G... Part 1.
Surely, it's a 2 vs 2 combat with no supporting file for either side? Neither side can align files into a position to qualify as a supporting file as defined in paras 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3. However, for either side, spending a card on an MF1 move would allow a legal supporting file to be created.   
... sorted? 

There is support as they fight as if they had conformed

Just curious - do people think that either UG could align from this position? The reason I'm hesitant to say they can is because if the Cav aligned to the infantry, the front base in their right-most file would seem to have to move more than 1 BW. Same thing for the infantry -  the front base in their left-most file would have to move more than 1 BW as well. And all this begs the question - could you even align into frontal combat without the intervening charge even if they bases were within 1 BW?

Hi,

For the base on the left (the one that couldn't press charge as over 1BW) from enemy, they may not aligned due to previous explained reason but they certainly could expand to feed the mêlée, right?

Quote from: FrancisSmall on March 03, 2021, 05:20:26 AM
Just curious - do people think that either UG could align from this position? The reason I'm hesitant to say they can is because if the Cav aligned to the infantry, the front base in their right-most file would seem to have to move more than 1 BW. Same thing for the infantry -  the front base in their left-most file would have to move more than 1 BW as well. And all this begs the question - could you even align into frontal combat without the intervening charge even if they bases were within 1 BW?

No they cannot align in this case. A bit unusual but it does happen.

Quote from: Rino on March 03, 2021, 05:56:14 AM
Hi,

For the base on the left (the one that couldn't press charge as over 1BW) from enemy, they may not aligned due to previous explained reason but they certainly could expand to feed the mêlée, right?

Slightly complicated. The front base of the file is an engaged base being able to be a supporting file and, therefore, cannot be moved with an M1 move - other bases that do not count as engaged could move.

QuoteSlightly complicated. The front base of the file is an engaged base being able to be a supporting file and, therefore, cannot be moved with an M1 move - other bases that do not count as engaged could move.

Hi Nik,
Is the following not true:
The left hand files (as you look at the pic) of both BGs are not in contact with the enemy and are too distant to permit alignment... therefore are not supporting files... therefore are not engaged and can be moved by M1 moves
I refer again to Rule 9.5G 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3

Suspect you are not using the Compendium edition of the rules as in that 9.5 G is casualty removal in combat.

I am using page 146 of the Compendium edition which is 9.5 I Supporting Files in Combat, specifically 3.4 which says "Or be in such a position that aligning would have resulted in the above situations" - the "above situations" are the requirements to be a supporting file.

QuoteSuspect you are not using the Compendium edition of the rules as in that 9.5 G is casualty removal in combat.

I am using page 146 of the Compendium edition which is 9.5 I Supporting Files in Combat, specifically 3.4 which says "Or be in such a position that aligning would have resulted in the above situations" - the "above situations" are the requirements to be a supporting file.

You are right, I'm using the old "poor man's" edition!
But even so, the BGs can't align, so the files can't be supporting files.

That's what the 9.5 I 3.4 covers and it means that they can be supporting files.