Questions about Garrison, Short Supply and Capable Tactician

One of the reasons why C&C is such a successful game is that the rules are very cleanly written and easy to understand which makes for a very playable game. I went back and reread the Garrisons rules very slowly. It’s all there; all you have to do is follow the rules verbatim. Garrisons are just like any infantry unit with a few exceptions. If it’s not listed in the exceptions then it’s just another infantry unit. Based on that, Garrisons may support other friendly units. Also based on one of the exceptions, friendly units may enter (retreat) into a Garrison. According to how the rules are written sans the Q&A.

If the author now says “No” to both of these then the rule should be rewritten to change the word “enter” into a town hex to “ordered and moved”. Also another exception needs to be added to the list saying that Garrisons do not support other friendly units.

I don’t have a problem with either one of these changes, but combined they don’t make sense. For example, an infantry unit just moved out of a town and left a Garrison. Now this same unit come under fire and is forced to retreat. By the Q&A, it cannot retreat into the town it just left the Garrison in because the Garrison is now considered its own infantry unit and blocks the path of the retreating unit. At the same time this Garrison which is substantial enough to block the path, is not substantial enough to provide support? It seems like you can’t have it both ways. Imagine a friendly infantry unit in front of two town hexes with a Garrison in each. I’d say the unit is in a strong position with two Garrisons towards its back; yet you are saying it is not supported and has no where to retreat; just doesn’t seem right. It should be one or the other.

Thanks for the replies. Just adding my 2 cents. Will have to discuss with my opponent on how we will play Garrisons.

I have been noticing the same thing, both with GMT for CCN, and with TGW. Where once I used to just tell people to "read the rules" and stop trying to infer or reason from how they thought the game works, it seems lately we have been getting multiple ambiguous rules and/or FAQ rulings that seem to directly contradict the wording in the published rules.

On a related note, ETA on when these will be updated into the Condensed FAQ? Given that these rulings and additions to the Garrison rules significant change what is written down in the rule book, I'd rather like to have a printed sheet with them to reference.

I have been noticing the same thing, both with GMT for CCN, and with TGW. Where once I used to just tell people to "read the rules" and stop trying to infer or reason from how they thought the game works, it seems lately we have been getting multiple ambiguous rules and/or FAQ rulings that seem to directly contradict the wording in the published rules.

Fully agree, i have choosen the CC system a long time ago, because of it´s simplicity too.
In meantime, it goes to a bad way like MM44 (FAQ thick as a phonebook).
Only 2 examples: Rocket Battery and Garrisson Marker to much single rules for those.

On a related note, ETA on when these will be updated into the Condensed FAQ? Given that these rulings and additions to the Garrison rules significant change what is written down in the rule book, I'd rather like to have a printed sheet with them to reference.

Just talking with Alessandro, if we can remove the Condenseed FAQ or the single section FAQ,
because it´s simple to much work, updating both, the printed FAQ and the FAQ´s which referes direct to the scenario, command/tacticcard and so on.

My suggestion is, removing the condensed FAQ, because the condensed is available in the pinting FAQ too.
But we could make a poll, what the users prefer to see, the single section FAQ or the Condensed FAQ,
updating all together prompt and without forgetting some (sub-) section, is simple to much work
(Alessandro must supervise in meantime 5 CC websites beside, and my work here is reduced in anytime soon also).