In answering rules or adjudication questions, I have the view that unless the issue would alter the basic chronology of the core elements of design, there may very well be multiple acceptable interpretations. These next three questions and my answers give examples of these differences. The other issue is that of how much difference in terms of realism vs. playability do you -- the garner - want to show between elite/veteran/green troops. The rules, for the most part, limit the differences to fire / casualties / morale ... with only selective use of the tactical competence roll. However, a strong case can be made, that the differences were much more pervasive and showed up in many, many things. If that is your view, then many other things can be so "calibrated" and the answers to questions two and three reflect this as an alternative approach, though it will add to the things a garner must remember during the game. The bottom line, is that JRIII -- with the exception of the core turn chronology -- is open to many valid interpretations of specific situations, so be willing to experiment, to a degree, but do make sure all players agree to these "rule departures" before the play of the game.

1) There is a statement in the rules that HOLD fires must be done after charges and first fires (the after is italicized and underlined). A number of us have always allowed units on hold within range to blast away at chargers as they come in. Is this incorrect, or are we misinterpreting the rules? Your thoughts, John?

The concept that charges must be resolved first is one of the core elements of the rules and hence -- it is italicized and underlined -which means that while many elements of the rules can be tinkered with, this - since it is part of the basic chronology -- is not one of them. Having said that, the issue comes up regarding defenders on HOLD who wish to fire at the charging unit, and that is allowed, because by electing to fire at the charging unit they have become part of the charge process and hence can participate in it.

2) John, do you allow a unit to go front-to-flank, move in column, then back to front-to-flank, or simply 1 front-to-flank per game turn per unit? Which is allowable?

This issue, since is not a part of the core chronology, is open to various interpretations and approaches. Technically, according to the rules, there is nothing to prevent a unit from doing this, assuming that enough movement points were available. However, I have seen -- and played with -- some interesting interpretations of this. One is that the option of two front-to-flank moves per turn could only be done by "elite" or "veteran" units, not green. In that case, the green units could only do one per turn. But, the most intriguing concept I came across was a variable "cost" in that elite units were only charged "one inch" per front-to-flank, while veterans were charged the normal "two inches" and green or militia units were charged "four inches" with the added caveat that these units also had to make a tactical competence roll to do it. While that seemed a bit harsh, it did tend to force the commander of the green or milita units to plan ahead and to take an entire FORM turn to get the green units facing the way he wanted. All in all, an interesting result, as my reenactment experience, did suggest that it took longer to do anything with brand new troops.

3) If a unit moves to within 2" of a skirmish line, does the skirmish fall back? We said no, noting that a skirmish line may not move within 2" of an enemy, but that enemy may indeed move within 2" of the skirmishers. Correct interpretation?

While the interpretation given is not incorrect, and can be used. I would recommend an alternate way of handling this. In the games I have run, if a formed unit advances onto a skirmish line, the skirmish line automatically falls back so as to stay out of close range. My rational for this is that, since skimishers are, by definition, operating in a fluid environment it is rational for them to move in such a way that maintains both their own survival, along with their screening ability. Also, such a "game activity" nicely mirrors the historical precedent of "driving in the skirmishers". The rule problem, however, is that what I just described is not in the rules ... so, the issue comes up, what to do if, the skirmishers had an alternate MOVE order given? In that instance, I would rule that the forced "move back" takes precedence over the planned move -- since survival is at stake -- and that they have moved.

On this same issue, there is yet another interesting way of handling the situation, allow the skirmishers -- if so desired to hold their position -- and fight it out at close range with the advancing formed troops. For instance, if it was "elite" skirmishers against a "green" unit in open order - the elite skirmishers might very well give the green unit a bloody nose in a close range fight, particularly if the skirmishers were on HOLD and would be firing first. So, my suggestions is that if you want your skirmishing unit to hold its ground, it must first pass a morale check -- not that tough for an elite unit -- but, if it fails, it goes shaken and executes an immediate DISENGAGE movement.