Quote: (nealhunt @ Jan. 29 2010, 14:59 )
To address this general concept of how to approach the rules, I'm not too keen on the idea of reading the RAW by strict grammatical, legalistic interpretations.  Jervis and the rest of GW/SG write rules using colloquial language to make the rule more accessible than the normal wargame tech-manual-speak.  That said, we are stuck with them to a certain extent because they are the most definitive and universal source.  We do our best to go with strict, legalistic RAW when answering questions.  The only times we deviate from that are issues that are direct conflicts or text that can be read with multiple interpretations (which is the case here).
The FAQs are not adjunct rules and are definitely not written to be parsed out detail.  The need for FAQs in many cases is driven by the fact that rules are sometimes extremely difficult to describe without "wiggle room" in the language, no matter how dry and technical you get.  The FAQs describe things in general terms and intent because there are limits to the precision of detail in rule language.  If you try to drill into the FAQs like the core rules you will just run into a postmodern semiotics infinite digression/deconstruction of the rules, i.e. you need another layer of clarifications, which will of course also fail in precision at some point, necessitating another layer... and another... and another.
If you want to know the "official" answer to charging into ZoCs, I gave it above.  This question has come up multiple times on every single iteration of the Epic/SG boards.  Jervis and the Answer Mods have, to the best of my knowledge, given the exact same answer since 2004.
Once you enter an enemy unit's ZoC, you move to base contact with that exact unit and stop.
In the end, though, it's your game.  Play it the way you want.  If you want to play fast and loose with who can base who, go for it.  I can tell you the guys I play with are very fast and loose on a lot of the rules.  We definitely move attackers en masse and don't move each model individually, checking which ZoCs are entered and which ZoCs are removed by base contact and sticking it to the attacker because he picked the wrong unit to base contact first and is therefore stuck with some sort of freaky-weird movement restrictions.  We pretty much go with a "if I know you can do it under the rules, just move the toys and don't worry about the intervening mechanics" approach.
You don't have to play by any "official" rules.  Just have fun.
I don't especially like over-analysing rules either, but the problem with colloquial, non-technical writing for rules is that it tends to be ambiguous. This is a problem, as individual colloquial interpretations vary, and so we are left in a situation like this, where we have to use dodgy reasoning to extract a definitive answer from an inadequate text. My (essentially instinctive) interpretation is obviously different to yours, and to the official line taken by Jervis &Co - meaning it's different to the original intent.
As you say, within the context of friendly gaming it's an easy matter to resolve the question with the 2 people I play Epic with (and I don't see it making much odds either way, as long as we all do it the same way), but it's more awkward for tournament games, where: 1. Many different interpretations may come together for the first (possibly only) time, and, 2. You end up having to have the same discussion at the start of every game, for each new opponent. There's also the problem that when you have lot's of things to discuss in the the 5 minute warm-up, it's easy to forget one and end up
Essentially, I prefer a definitive answer, even if it involves finicky arguments on the web, simply because I'd rather have the answer at a tournament. It's better to have the discussions when I've nothing better to do than have them cut into my gaming time.
As an aside, I think your interpretation is preferable since moving into B2B with two enemies leaves you immune from counter-charging. I still don't see a clear case in the rules, though if it's official I'm happy enough to accept it.
