Do Conscripts cower with leader direction?

Meeduluk

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
91
Reaction score
9
Location
Staines Massif
First name
Mick
Country
llUnited Kingdom
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/Un-armed-units regardless of leader presence.

7.9 COWERING: IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original "Doubles" unless a leader directs that attack. […] 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).

19.33 COWERING: Inexperienced Personnel or a FG containing Inexperienced Personnel which cowers (7.9) must shift two columns to the left on the IFT for that attack.



A leader directs a Conscript MMC attack on the IFT, and doubles are thrown. Does the attack cower?

My interpretation is that despite 19.3 stating that restrictive rules for Conscripts always apply regardless of leader presence, the attack has not cowered in the first place because of the 7.9 rule, so there are no restrictive rules to apply.

My regular opponent believes otherwise, that leader direction can never prevent cowering with a Conscript IFT attack.

I have had a look in Perry Sez/Q&A, no joy.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
764
Reaction score
211
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
I didn't find any errata supporting that conscripts don't always cower. The rule does say 'regardless of leader presence' and 19.3 is a higher numbered rule than 7.9.

I'd have to say I've probably always rendered conscripts immune to cowering when stacked with a leader, but it looks like your opponent is correct here. Surprisingly!
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,146
Reaction score
3,636
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
A leader directs a Conscript MMC attack on the IFT, and doubles are thrown. Does the attack cower?
No.

A7.9:
"IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original “Doubles” unless a leader directs that attack."

A19.33 only come into effect if the attack cowers.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
764
Reaction score
211
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
No.

A7.9:
"IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original “Doubles” unless a leader directs that attack."

A19.33 only come into effect if the attack cowers.
ok... That's not 100% clear... although that is a likely interpretation I've been using forever.

But since conscripts having badly regardless of the presence of a leader, this wording of 19.3 to 19.33 could confound the interpretation presented, especially if we apply the higher numbered rule exception.

The exception we all love to hate and do our best to get around.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
792
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I agree with Klas. An Inexperienced Unit will not cower if a leader is directing that fire. A19.33 only explains the effect of cowering for Inexperienced Units. It is also clear (complete with citation) that A7.9 still applies and governs whether or not the unit cowers:

A19.33 COWERING: Inexperienced Personnel or a FG containing Inexperienced Personnel which cowers (7.9) must shift two columns to the left on the IFT for that attack.​
It is A7.9 which sets the rule for leader presense to avoid cowering, not A19.33:

A7.9 COWERING: IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original "Doubles" unless a leader directs that attack.​
So cowering isn't one of "the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel", the effect of cowering is one of those rules.

Interpreting this differently, I think, would severely hurt the balance of any scenario which includes Inexperienced Infantry.
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,146
Reaction score
3,636
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
The immediate post above is exaclty what I think. Cowering itself is not a restrictive rule of Inexperienced Personnel. The effect, when cowering occurs, is.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
764
Reaction score
211
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Ha Binchois, it's easy to agree with Klas, someone has to disagree with him just to make sure the logic is sound;)

Also, just because balance might be impacted, doesn't mean we pick that interpretation for the sake of removing that inconvenience.

Klas, the restrictive rule of conscripts could be seen as if they ignore leaders for the purposes of being inexperienced at all times and conditions. I think we would have to look into the rules related to leader direction. For example, if leadership modifiers definitely modify the attack of a conscript, then one would have to conclude that the fire is directed prior to the factor of them being inexperience.

Otherwise, the rules as written are not comprehensive and 100% clear. Hence the query by the OP questioning his opponent's reasoning.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
17,146
Reaction score
3,636
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
IMO, they are at least 99% clear, :)

There is nothing (that I can see) in A19.3-.36 that indicates a leader can't direct Conscript units.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
764
Reaction score
211
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
IMO, they are at least 99% clear, :)

There is nothing (that I can see) in A19.3-.36 that indicates a leader can't direct Conscript units.
you appear to have logic on your side :)

7.531 A leader may use his leadership DRM (10.7) to modify the IFT DR of any one attacking unit or FG per Player Turn, provided all firing units of the FG are in the same Location.

Nothing says a conscript is not a unit. So it looks like conscripts don't cower under leader direction.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
792
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
Otherwise, the rules as written are not comprehensive and 100% clear. Hence the query by the OP questioning his opponent's reasoning.
I respect the OP question which is why I opened the RB to ascertain what the Good Book says. I think it is clear in this case. You are simply misreading A19. It does not say that Inexperienced Personal cower regardless of the direction of a leader. When an Inexperienced Unit is never discussed under A19. It only explains that the effects of cowering would be more severe. A7.9 explains the same thing, btw, also without denying the leader's ability to prevent cowering.

Also, just because balance might be impacted, doesn't mean we pick that interpretation for the sake of removing that inconvenience.
I never said that balance was the reason to interpret the rule one way or the other. Think of it more as a signpost to the correct answer.

I think we would have to look into the rules related to leader direction. For example, if leadership modifiers definitely modify the attack of a conscript, then one would have to conclude that the fire is directed prior to the factor of them being inexperience.
A red herring, to be sure. Nothing in A19 denies leadership


Ha Binchois, it's easy to agree with Klas, someone has to disagree with him just to make sure the logic is sound;)
It is when he's right! 😉 I think I've been here long enough to learn from him (and others) how this game and its RB works. Thanks to Klas...and everyone else too!
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
764
Reaction score
211
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
You are simply misreading A19. It does not say that Inexperienced Personal cower regardless of the direction of a leader.
Nah. You've misstated the situation. It is not clear. For example, the rules do not say that A7.9 trumps A19.3. In fact, E.2 suggests the opposite. Hence, why I considered further investigation into the fire direction rules, which, you may notice, Klas did explore. I hadn't the time to do so at the moment I had posted the idea.

Not misreading anything simply, nor complexly. Just keeping a most careful eye on how the rules work in the manner they are phrased.

The argument I've presented has merit as does the OP's opponent's argument, and it has arisen -- like it or not -- due to ambiguity in how the rules are written and the sequence they are written, in conjunction with E.2. If the rules were airtight, there would not have been a discussion between apparently longtime opponents who have played this game a lot. So that needs to be put in the pipe and smoked!

Further, the rationale is independent of how long anyone has been here claiming expertise in understanding how things work around here, wherever this is ;). That's not a factor.
 

DC

Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
357
Reaction score
31
Location
Chelmsford, UK
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Does not 19.3 apply here? Green units ate exempt from IE penalties if with a leader but Conscripts always suffer the penalty?
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
152
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Does not 19.3 apply here? Green units ate exempt from IE penalties if with a leader but Conscripts always suffer the penalty?
No, there isn't ONE penalty, Double cowering with IE units.
Check the other penalties that apply.
ALL of these penalties are lifted in 19.3
Cowering is a penalty applied to MOST units.
 

Kijug

Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
164
Reaction score
94
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
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/Un-armed-units regardless of leader presence.

7.9 COWERING: IFT attacks are adversely affected by any IFT resolution DR that results in Original "Doubles" unless a leader directs that attack. […] 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).

19.33 COWERING: Inexperienced Personnel or a FG containing Inexperienced Personnel which cowers (7.9) must shift two columns to the left on the IFT for that attack.



A leader directs a Conscript MMC attack on the IFT, and doubles are thrown. Does the attack cower?

My interpretation is that despite 19.3 stating that restrictive rules for Conscripts always apply regardless of leader presence, the attack has not cowered in the first place because of the 7.9 rule, so there are no restrictive rules to apply.

My regular opponent believes otherwise, that leader direction can never prevent cowering with a Conscript IFT attack.

I have had a look in Perry Sez/Q&A, no joy.
Remember rule 19.3 overrides 7.9 in rule ordering. So yes, the conscripts cower (i.e., regardless of leadership).
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,781
Reaction score
2,386
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Remember rule 19.3 overrides 7.9 in rule ordering. So yes, the conscripts cower (i.e., regardless of leadership).
Yes they (conscripts or a FG including conscripts) will double cower if a leader is present in the stack but not directing the attack but if he is directing the attack A7.9 kicks in. The operative word here is "present" and what does that encompass, it is left to the reader to decipher. I agree the statement by itself (A19.3) obfuscates the intent here and would be better served if an exception was added for leadership direction as a clarification. If experience is an indicator though, in 30+ years of ASL play I have not encountered a situation where a player has insisted that a leader directed attack from a stack including conscripts has double cowered by rolling doubles on its IFT/IIFT attack DR.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
152
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Remember rule 19.3 overrides 7.9 in rule ordering. So yes, the conscripts cower (i.e., regardless of leadership).
LOL In that case non IE units NEVER cower since that onlyapplies to IE....oh wait...NOPE.
Cowering is not an IE effect.....Its an effect that comes into play when NOT being directed.
IE effects come into play IF the cowering applies...and if it does....Then double cower.

I'd hate to see you guys determine proper rout determination hexes....
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
152
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Please list all of the restrictive IE penalites before continuing this nigh pointless discussion.
THOSE penalties exist regardless of leader presence.
 
Top