MoodytheWise wrote:Diplomat wrote:I think you confuse attacking the territory, and attacking the unit...
Well, I think that's a meaningless distinction that doesn't actually exist in any rules I've ever seen. Everything is attacking the territory, really. Since there is no such distinction, and attacking a(n adjacent) territory is always a legal move, the bit about illegal orders and resulting in holds is just not true. My point is that "You cannot order your own units to attack each other, those orders are illegal and result in holds" is a confusing statement, especially in a FAQ, where people typically come to look for clarification, not outright untruths and confusion based on meaningless semantic distinctions.
But whatever, it's your FAQ. You don't have to make it better if you don't want to, I'm just pointing out what I see.
4th Ed. Rules, page 4, under Move Order the rule actually draws a distinction between moving and moving into a territory which is occupied, the second of which is specifically referred to as 'attacking'. Check the rules. As you can't attack your own units in a territory and create a dislodgment, the rule is it ends up as a hold.
The situation your referring to is one where unit A tries to move out of territory A (the attack) and Unit B supported by C try to fill the void but when A bounces back B bounces back as well. When D supported by E also try to enter A they create a Beleaguered Garrison situation bouncing against B/C who also try to occupy the territory.
Clearly any summary cannot specifically refer to every situation you might come across, otherwise all you would ever get by way of response is 'go read the rules' or you would end up rewriting the rules and creating more issues of potential misinterpretation. I noticed you did not attempt a revision, just complained... how would you explain 5+ pages of rules about moves, plus the examples section, in 1 paragraph?