OK weīre clear on that you answered while I was typing....
Donīt want to erase it, perhaps someone else needs it to understand what I mean:
I think you misinterpret the wording another with another (of your own/friendly or anything)....
Iīm not sure if it was ever intended as this, but I read it as follows:
1. the enemy model is in CC with the one wanting to leave per definition (either by b2b or special rules)
2. there is no reference to another friendly/enemy model or anything in your quoting
3. that means that the closest enemy model has only to be engaged in CC with any model ...
4. the direction of the phrase (the causal chain of events/position/condition) in your quoting goes from the target away to another (any other !) model (sorry for the wording, canīt get in better in english...)
5. In the moment you begin the action your enemy/or CC adversary is actually engaged in CC --> with the model leaving it ;-)
6. It is also automatically the closest enemy model
7. meeting all the requirements of your quoted paragraph you are allowed to explicitly ignore this enemy model you leave
1. Yes
2. Yes, but in generell you have to attack the closest enemy model. Thats the reference.
3. Not any. Another (Please dont see the colour as a shout. It just should indicate how important this word is)
4. I'm sorry. I don't know what you are meaning here or why this is an argument.
5. Yes
6. Yes and that is why you have to attack it again in this action.
7. No, because the enemy is not engaged with another model and therefore you cant ignore the target priority.
Ad 2:
Yes itīs right that in general you attack the closest enemy, but what I meant was that there is no reference for an explanation of "another" as you like to quote.
It only says "another" (2 models), not "another XXXXX" [set here the friendly/enemy] ( making it more than the 2 models).
So still no reference in my meaning.
Points 3 and 4 go together in a way:
Ad 4: Point 4 means that the passage doesnīt refer to a group of 2 models already in CC with another model coming to add (making them 3).
Thereīs written about the
enemy and
another model (thatīs
two models, the minimum needed for a CC).
Since you gave me the point in 5 where you accept that in the moment of decision (which one to attack) the
enemy is engaged with
another model.
Ad 3:
Truly that word is the decision point. And I think you interpret too much in the meaning of the word.
The explanation above explains it. You read the "
another"
(for me meaning 2 models: the one enemy who is charged and the charging one) as "
another model apart from the the two [again the charging and the charged one]
we are talking about"
(making it 3 models, which I think isnīt derivable from the passage). It only goes from
enemy to
another --> that was the circumscription of the direction of the phrase.
My talking of any should make it a bit easier as the short form for any other ( an[y]-other --> another)
The dictinction is truly if you read another as 2 models in the whole lot or as 3 and thatīs where we differ.
Ad 6:
Yes if you read another as 3 models you would have to circle and attack the left enemy again.
Ad 7:
in your answer to 5 you already accepted that the enemy is engaged in CC in the moment of decision which model to atttack --> consequence is that its ignorable
