---Your logic is excellent Vincent. I concur with your point of view.
Roy


In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "AUGER Vincent" <vincent.auger@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>