[ A ][ D ]

[ B][C ]

A and D are allies, opposed to B and C.

in the beginning, it was simple engagement: A fought B. then C charged and squared up so it touched both A and B, killed A. Thed D charged at C from the flank ("northside" on this poor drawing), and killed it. next turn, it charges straight so its flank touches flank of B (it must, as it squared perfectly and C was touching B).

1)is there any engagement?

2) is it legal charge?

I'm going to go with 'maybe'. It depends how far the unit charged.

So, the charging unit will never overlap the target unit so section 55.3 will never trigger - so no collision. However, if the unit is touching at the end of the movement then section 18 will trigger a collision (touching an obstacle that you weren't touching before). Also, remember that your side connectors are deemed not to exist while moving forwards.

It's a weird case where a long charge would fail but a short charge would succeed. Definitely weird.

Conversely, a short move would result in a collision (and panic) but a long move would get clear.

Between this and the terrain issue, I'm beginning to dislike the way that section 18 is written.

I'm very open to other interpretations on this one.

7 hours ago, tall thin climber said:

Also, remember                    that your side connectors are deemed not to exist while moving forward       s

You may ignore the connectors so you would collide of you wanted to

19 hours ago, Corto said:

You   may ignore the connectors so you would collide of you wanted to 

Good spot - this is the rule that enables he moving unit to be nudged sideways to avoid a collision if only the moving unit's connectors overlap.

So I stand corrected, fortunately. The moving unit above has the choice of whether to collide or not, regardless of the length of the move.

If the unit chooses not to collide then it is nudged ever so slightly away so that, wherever it finishes, it will not be touching.