Sorry guys but saying that a unit in melee is moving may look nice on
paper, however it does not, IMO, stand up to a close review of game
impacts. The issue here is not limited to bracing but impacts all game
areas where being stationnary is a requirement.
One example is terrain advantage. With your interpretation, a warband
could charge a FT unit uphill, break-off and charge again with the FT
not having the up hill bonus in this second charge (providing the
warband move first) because it was in melee, hence moved, since the
movement phase previous to contact. Another more critical example: a
schiltron hit in flank would lose its schiltron status by the end of
the first turn and will be almost automatically wiped out in the
second round of melee. None of these 2 examples looks desirable to me
yet both are the direct consequence of losing the stationnary status
when in melee.

Furthermore, if you consider that an Armati unit represents several
real units on the battlefield, then I do not see an issue in having
part of a Armati unit engaged in melee while other parts are steady
and ready to receive another enemy's charge.

The given example of the cavalry is misleading IMO. In the case of
cavalry, it is in danger in case of double charge because it has not
impetus anymore. The idea here is that all parts of an Armati unit
engaged in melee are slowed down sufficiently to be unable to launch
effective counter charges later on. The issue is therefore about the
capacity of still being able to move while in melee, not of being
stationnary.

Making a difference between stationnary for bracing and other
stationnary effects (PH, Schiltron, terrain...) would involve much
complexity and be contradictory with the KISS principle.

I therefore stick to the current wording of the RV which says that
bracing is retained while in melee. More generally, we could clarify
that being in melee does NOT prevent keeping, or acquiring, the
stationnary status.

Best regards



Vincent