Conscript 426 cowering or not.

[MajorDomo]

Prep fired a 8-0, 426 and a 447 for an 8 flat. Rolled "3,3" for a 1MC. My opponent says, "not so fast", the 426 cowered.

I then quoted A7.9

7.9 COWERING: IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original "Doubles" unless a leader directs that attack. The penalty for rolling Doubles without leadership direction is that the attack is resolved on the next lower column of the IFT. ... Cowering FP penalties are doubled (i.e., resolved two columns lower on the IFT) for an attack by Inexperienced (A19.33) Personnel (even in conjunction with other troops).

He quoted A19.3 and said the 426 cowers despite a leader directing the attack because A19.3 is a higher numbered rule.

19.3 INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL RESTRICTIONS: A Green MMC stacked with an unbroken leader is exempt from the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel, which always apply to Conscripts/Unarmed-units regardless of leader presence.


I have always played that A19.3 applies to movement, not fire. What do you say?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Does not cower when directed by a leader. I see nothing in A19.3 that "overrides" A7.9.

 

[Russ Isaia]

I guess to rationalize, the "restrictive rule of Inexperienced Personnel" in the case of cowering is whether cowering causes a two column shift or only a one column shift, not whether the attack cowers at all.

Which should also mean that if a Green unit is stacked with a leader, but the leader does not direct the unit's fire, and the unit's attack cowers, the shift is just one column because of the presence of the leader, not two. And indeed there is a lengthy Q&A on Green units that says "not two."

 

[Larry]

A7.9: The penalty for rolling Doubles without leadership direction is that the attack is resolved on the next lower column of the IFT. [...] Cowering FP penalties are doubled (i.e., resolved two columns lower on the IFT) for an attack by Inexperienced (19.33) Personnel (even in conjunction with other troops).

Units rolling doubles with leadership do not cower. There is no penalty to double because the if statement is not true ... doubles without leadership.

As a syllogistic restatement: if you roll doubles without leadership direction, then you cower. If you cower with an inexperienced unit, the cowering penalty is doubled.

 

[Eagle4ty]

A7.9: The penalty for rolling Doubles without leadership direction is that the attack is resolved on the next lower column of the IFT. [...] Cowering FP penalties are doubled (i.e., resolved two columns lower on the IFT) for an attack by Inexperienced (19.33) Personnel (even in conjunction with other troops).

Units rolling doubles with leadership do not cower. There is no penalty to double because the if statement is not true ... doubles without leadership.

As a syllogistic restatement: if you roll doubles without leadership direction, then you cower. If you cower with an inexperienced unit, the cowering penalty is doubled.

EXC of course Green personnel stacked with a leader (directing fire or not), "19.3 INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL RESTRICTIONS: A Green MMC stacked with an unbroken leader is exempt from the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel, ..."

 

[The Purist]

Indeed. Green MMC get their movement and other capabilities back as long as they are stacked with a leader. They may be green but are still better motivated than conscript or unarmed MMC.

I wonder how many people remember the -1 DRM to capture (or recapture) unarmed MMC in CC melee. It probably doesn't come up often but still,.... a small rule tucked away towards the back of Chapter A.

Edit: Having just completed Dinant as the French you quickly learn how make the most out of Green MMCs and a CG SSR meant prisoners could not be refused. A19.2 - .3 was read over a few times.

 

[Stewart]

Cowering is not a restriction it's a penalty. Most units can cower, leader remove that penalties
3 MF is a restriction from the normal 4MF

 

[Robin Reeve]

Cowering is not a restriction it's a penalty. Most units can cower, leader remove that penalties
3 MF is a restriction from the normal 4MF

Where do the rules differenciate restriction and penalty?
I am not sure that your semantics solve the question.

 

[Stewart]

Where do the rules differenciate restriction and penalty?
I am not sure that your semantics solve the question.

It states it in the inexperienced section....the EXTRA column is the penalty, NOT the application of cowering result of paired dice. 7.9 exempts units from the cowering effect.

19.33 COWERING: Inexperienced Personnel or a FG containing Inexperienced Personnel which cowers (7.9) must shift two columns (the IE penalty) to the left on the IFT for that attack. A mixed FG of regular and Inexperienced Personnel may thus prove to be a liability because the presence of the latter may penalize the performance of the FG as a whole.

 

[peterd1973]

What about this bit, "regardless of leader presence."?

Looks like 19.3 INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL RESTRICTIONS is a heading, and 19.31-6 lists the restrictions.

 

[von Marwitz]

Folks, before turning in circles again, we do have a Perry Sez on this since recently...

Read here.

This issue is solved with the ruling that Conscripts do not cower if directed by a Leader.

Cheers von Marwitz

 

[Stewart]

I wouldn't call it a ruling but a "clarification".

 

[Stewart]

What about this bit, "regardless of leader presence."?

Looks like 19.3 INEXPERIENCED PERSONNEL RESTRICTIONS is a heading, and 19.31-6 lists the restrictions.

I think some people read that as Leader Direction. Which it obviously doesn't mean

 

[peterd1973]

Ok, I'll chalk it up to not written well, organized well.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I wouldn't call it a ruling but a "clarification".

That's what ALL Perry Sez are. If they are otherwise, then they are errata. -- jim

 

[Pyth]

I nominate this thread and all participants for an Unnecessary Rule Clarification Unit Citation with special commendation for relentless argument,pro and con, in pursuit of a rule that hasnt been in doubt since 1986.???