We had the following situation in our last game: a unit of rangers (Irregulars, Rep 4, Leader Rep 5) at the edge of the woods was Firing At Will at a unit of French Regulars in the open, in their firing arc but to the left. The Regulars were returning fire. During this firefight, a unit of French-allied Indians moved into the open directly in front of the Rangers. Next turn this unit of Indians would be in charge range of the Rangers.
We understand the rules mandate that the Rangers will continue to fire at the Regulars until a reaction result is attained. The Rangers, however, wanted to stop firing at the Regulars and Reload in preparation for the impending Indian charge.
In this situation, the intention of the rules as written may be to permit the "pinning"of the Rangers in a firefight so as to enable the Indians to close and then charge the Rangers while they are unloaded and otherwise occupied. That is how we played it; the Indians charged and won the ensuing melee. A perfectly reasonable series of events.
We wondered if this might be another way to apply the "Assert Control" rule I wrote about a couple posts ago in relation to controlled volleys? In this case the Rangers could have tested to turn their attention to the new threat directly in front of them - passing 2D6 they would have stopped firing and reloaded, passing 1D6 they would have stopped firing without reloading and passing 0D6 they would have continued to Fire At Will at their original target, the French Regulars.
Whaddyathink? Would this be in the spirit of the rules or starting down a slippery slope of "too much control?"