Do Conscripts cower with leader direction?

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,528
Reaction score
834
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
They suffer the penalties (two column shift) IF they cower - but Conscripts do not cower when directed by a leader.
This is all there is to it gents. All the wasted typing can stop now and people can get on with important things,... like breathing and playing the game.

This entire thread is about 15 posts too long.

<<Exasperation>>
 
Last edited:

The Magnus

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
255
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
ok... That's not 100% clear... although that is a likely interpretation I've been using forever.
What is wrong with you guys 😇😇😇.

It used to be that there were lively discussions on this forum UNTIL JRV or Klas straightened things out. Then discussions stopped because there was really nothing else to discuss. Save intervention from Perry, of course.

Now JRV is gone.

And you question Klas when it comes to ASL Rules.

What is this world coming to? What is next?

Involving feminism to remove heroes from the game?

Introducing a “third gender” in VASL so that the North Koreans and Chinese Communists must not be lumped together with the Axis?

Renaming Italian counters to “Late Roman Army” to save present day Italians from their embarrassingly low morale? Maybe even introducing some kind of European Units with free SW and AFVs to be deducted from the German, Finnish, Swedish and both Minors counter mixes. The French are half-Romans and sit this one out. Not to be deducted from the British units, though, as they do not cower any more.

Reissuing the Swedish Volunteers in a special edition together with a bottle of Absolute Vodka to commemorate the inability of (some) Swedish players to stay sober/conscious during ASL tournaments?

Please tell😎😎😎
 

Meeduluk

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
91
Reaction score
9
Location
Staines Massif
First name
Mick
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I'm the original poster, looking back in the archive this isn't the first time this rule has been questioned.
As has been mentioned, there's clearly something about the wording that folk are finding ambiguous.
Perhaps Magnus is right, approaching Perry might be a way forward, not least to ratify Klas' interpretation, which would put people's minds at rest.
Mick.
 

The Magnus

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
255
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
Perhaps Magnus is right, approaching Perry might be a way forward, not least to ratify Klas' interpretation, which would put people's minds at rest.
Mick.
Hey Mick - if you are "The Mick" to whom I lost a VASL tournament game a few weeks back - nice to be in touch again. That was a fun game.

I think you are overinterpreting my statement. It is true that, as an atheist, I do not believe that Klas or JRV - or Perry for that matter - is a god. But all three are pretty damn close regarding ASL rules, and might even do a better job as god than any invisible competitor to the title in any other matter such as Covid or world peace. So when Klas says "No" I would say that there is a 99% chance Perry would agree (Klas and JRV tend to hedge their answers if they are not absolutely sure and Klas' hedge this time was indeed 99% :) ). Asking Perry is therefore probably a waste of time. Better would be to get the owner of Gamesquad to get on his bare knees begging JRV to come back so that the value of this particular forum goes back to 100% (uups - will this get me censored :eek::eek::eek:?).

As for me - I have always played it with no cowering of inexperienced squads when there is a leader present. But that is just me, and I am not in the 99% league (yet) :p.

Small anecdote: I have played JRV once - at ASLOK 3 years ago. When my opponent moves I sometime say "You are good" to indicate that I am not shooting. Most opponents then move their unit one more hex. Not JRV - he answered "I know" :) .
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
2,907
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
FWIW, I thought Conscripts ALWAYS cower. I have never seen anyone else play it this way. A careful reading of A19.33 sees cowering defined in A7.9, which as we all know, says if there is no leader, you cower on doubles. The problem comes in A19.3: "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." So the Inexperienced rules ALWAYS apply to a Conscript/Unarmed unit regardless of leader presence. There in lays the confusion. There is no cowering if a leader is present (A7.9) but a Conscript is always subject to the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel when a leader is present. I honestly think this could use a Q&A or a chime in by Perry. I always lean to Klas' reading so I continue to play this as if Conscripts do not cower if a leader is present, but I am not certain that was the intent. JMO, YMMV. -- jim
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,147
Reaction score
2,560
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I am not hoping nor wanting jrv to come back.
He was a notch lower than Klas as a rules guru.
And his slamming the door of this forum confirmed some bad side of his personality.
That said, I still appreciated his answers to rules questions.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
2,907
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
And his slamming the door of this forum confirmed some bad side of his personality.
And what was that? Being unhappy that someone would silently change the content of his post and imply it was what he said? That someone would delete his post without speaking to him about it? Bad side of his personality indeed. 🙄🙄 -- jim
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,204
Reaction score
4,738
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
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.
Eagle4ty has it correct. I mirror his experience but will throw in merely 25 years of ASL play.

von Marwitz
 

gorkowskij

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
35
Country
llUnited States
FWIW, I thought Conscripts ALWAYS cower. I have never seen anyone else play it this way. A careful reading of A19.33 sees cowering defined in A7.9, which as we all know, says if there is no leader, you cower on doubles. The problem comes in A19.3: "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." So the Inexperienced rules ALWAYS apply to a Conscript/Unarmed unit regardless of leader presence. There in lays the confusion. There is no cowering if a leader is present (A7.9) but a Conscript is always subject to the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel when a leader is present. I honestly think this could use a Q&A or a chime in by Perry. I always lean to Klas' reading so I continue to play this as if Conscripts do not cower if a leader is present, but I am not certain that was the intent. JMO, YMMV. -- jim
Fair question. I believe the answer follows from the fact that the act of cowering, in and of itself, is NOT one of the "restrictive rules of inexperienced personnel" (A19.3), even though the magnitude of such cowering (two columns) is one of those "restrictive rules."

In other words, "So the Inexperienced rules ALWAYS apply to a Conscript/Unarmed unit regardless of leader presence" is CORRECT, but cowering is not one of those rules.

Cowering (A7.9) stands on its own and applies to all personnel who are not leader directed (excepting certain Brits and Finns). So leader-directed conscripts would not cower. The "restrictive rules of inexperienced personnel" (A19.3), come into play for those specific cases enumerated in that section. So although both green and conscript troops have only 3 MP on their own (A19.31), if led by an 8-0 the green unit's base movement would rise to 4 before adding the +2 for the leader wheres the conscript, even with the leader, would still have a base of 3 MP before adding the +2 for the leader. As noted, although the magnitude of cowering (two columns) is one of those restrictive rules (A19.33), the act of cowering itself is not. So leader direction mitigates cowering per the first sentence of A7.9.

Hope that helps.
John
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,204
Reaction score
4,738
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I am not hoping nor wanting jrv to come back.
He was a notch lower than Klas as a rules guru.
And his slamming the door of this forum confirmed some bad side of his personality.
That said, I still appreciated his answers to rules questions.
Even if he were a 'notch lower' than Klas as a rules guru, that still translates into 'towering high above almost everyone else right, left, and center'.

Leaving the forum for the reason he did testifies nothing about something like a bad personality at all.
I have the impression that some feel JRV leaving the forum was like leaving the people here as individual persons and more begrudge rather the wrongly perceived latter than the former.

While I do not expect everyone to care about, notice, or regret JRVs leaving, I cannot follow notion of wanting him not to return and find it ill-founded.

von Marwitz
 

The Magnus

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
238
Reaction score
255
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
That someone would delete his post without speaking to him about it? Bad side of his personality indeed. 🙄🙄 -- jim
Hm, I have had that happen to me as well 😢. No idea who did it, as there was no notification.

I know that I can be a sarcastical pest, and so I did not make a stink out of it or even mention it, until this post. But that is when I took the personal decision that if Gamesquad would ever start to charge money (has been considered, reliable sources tell me), I would be out of here. Why pay money to get censored :censored::censored::censored:
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
2,907
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Fair question. I believe the answer follows from the fact that the act of cowering, in and of itself, is NOT one of the "restrictive rules of inexperienced personnel" (A19.3), even though the magnitude of such cowering (two columns) is one of those "restrictive rules."

In other words, "So the Inexperienced rules ALWAYS apply to a Conscript/Unarmed unit regardless of leader presence" is CORRECT, but cowering is not one of those rules.

Cowering (A7.9) stands on its own and applies to all personnel who are not leader directed (excepting certain Brits and Finns). So leader-directed conscripts would not cower. The "restrictive rules of inexperienced personnel" (A19.3), come into play for those specific cases enumerated in that section. So although both green and conscript troops have only 3 MP on their own (A19.31), if led by an 8-0 the green unit's base movement would rise to 4 before adding the +2 for the leader wheres the conscript, even with the leader, would still have a base of 3 MP before adding the +2 for the leader. As noted, although the magnitude of cowering (two columns) is one of those restrictive rules (A19.33), the act of cowering itself is not. So leader direction mitigates cowering per the first sentence of A7.9.

Hope that helps.
John
That's a fine interpretation. I understand how you get there. I don't believe your's is the only reasonable interpretation that another reasonable person can get to. I don't think it unreasonable that when a rule says "always apply to Conscripts/Unarmed-units regardless of leader presence" that it is unreasonable to think that cowering two columns even when a leader is present-in spite of A7.9--is a huge leap of faith. To say that double-cowering is not a "restrictive rules of inexperienced personnel" is to ignore that all of 19.3x are those restrictive rules. WRT your movement point, A19.31 is pretty explicit with the differences between Inexperienced and Conscripts when moving. Breakdown rules are also covered elsewhere in the rules (A9.7)--just as cowering is covered elsewhere--yet you don't question 19.32's provisions of reduced breakdown numbers (Green with leader won't, but Conscript with Leader will). IMO, this is one of those rules which I think should be clean up if the intent is not to cower when a leader is present. IMO, it isn't as cut and dried as it should be. YMMV. -- jim
 

Meeduluk

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
91
Reaction score
9
Location
Staines Massif
First name
Mick
Country
llUnited Kingdom
So what's the procedure for asking Perry Cocke to make an adjudication, somebody emails him at MMP?
 

Meeduluk

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
91
Reaction score
9
Location
Staines Massif
First name
Mick
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hey Mick - if you are "The Mick" to whom I lost a VASL tournament game a few weeks back - nice to be in touch again. That was a fun game.

I think you are overinterpreting my statement. It is true that, as an atheist, I do not believe that Klas or JRV - or Perry for that matter - is a god. But all three are pretty damn close regarding ASL rules, and might even do a better job as god than any invisible competitor to the title in any other matter such as Covid or world peace. So when Klas says "No" I would say that there is a 99% chance Perry would agree (Klas and JRV tend to hedge their answers if they are not absolutely sure and Klas' hedge this time was indeed 99% :) ). Asking Perry is therefore probably a waste of time. Better would be to get the owner of Gamesquad to get on his bare knees begging JRV to come back so that the value of this particular forum goes back to 100% (uups - will this get me censored :eek::eek::eek:?).

As for me - I have always played it with no cowering of inexperienced squads when there is a leader present. But that is just me, and I am not in the 99% league (yet) :p.

Small anecdote: I have played JRV once - at ASLOK 3 years ago. When my opponent moves I sometime say "You are good" to indicate that I am not shooting. Most opponents then move their unit one more hex. Not JRV - he answered "I know" :) .
Quite right Magnus, I'm 'The Mick'... the one who diced you on VASL a couple of weeks back 😁
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
2,907
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
So what's the procedure for asking Perry Cocke to make an adjudication, somebody emails him at MMP?
I sent in a question yesterday too. I have been engaged with Klas on the topic as well. -- jim
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
2,907
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Do Conscripts cower (2 column shift) even if a leader directs the fire?

At odds:
A7.9 says leader directed shots don't cower.
A19.3 says "the restrictive rules of Inexperienced Personnel ... always apply to Conscripts/Unarmed-units regardless of leader presence."
A19.33 is the rule which speaks to a two column shift when firing with Conscripts. The way the rule book is laid out, A19.3X (i.e., A19.3 to A19.36) ARE the restrictive rules which apply to inexperienced personnel. While I think the intent is Conscripts will not cower when a leader is present, the fact that A19.33 says they double shift when cowering and A19.3 says the presence of leader does not negate the penalties brings this into question.

No one cowers when directed by a leader.

....Perry
MMP
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
139
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
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.
It's perfectly clear.
There is no trumping effect of A7.9 as cowering never enters the equation for the Penalty to apply.

Mind you reading 19.3. Cowering CAN apply as with all of the other IE restrictions when the leader is present. NOTE: Present =/= directing fire.
SO, the C may still incur the EXTRA column shift, BUT the Green unit will not incur the extra shift when the LEADER does not direct the fire of the respective units.

Understand, G has 4MF, no X/B penaties, no extra column shift, no 1PAATC nor -1 CCV, no -1 to capture, nor LAX when a leader is PRESENT, i.e. IMO in the units LOCATION. Now you COULD argue presence in the hex....LOL

AGAIN, the leader doesn't have to DIRECT the fire of the GREEN unit to eliminate the EXTRA column shift penalty of 19.33 as the leader is stacked with the Green unit. The penalty isn't the DOUBLE shift but an EXTRA shift. If no cower by direction (in the case of C units, not green) then 19.33 isn't triggered.


Understand that and you will understand the application of IE penalties.
 

SSlunt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
266
Reaction score
60
Location
Calgary AB
Country
llCanada
How did this get past the first post?
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...
If the leader directs the attack there is no Cower. So there is no penalty - there is no adverse effect. It does not matter what the unit it.
 
Top