foot cb standing to receive, charge only shooters

[nikgaukroger]

Are you sure? Point 6 in your quote above says when standing or charging

It does seem to suggest that shoot and charge shooters, shoot any one in arc and range as per 1 but charge only shooters are further limited to those that would make contact in the charge as per 6

Remember that Charge Only shooters automatically have the Shoot & Charge characteristic (see 5 J in the PDF) hence why 1 applies.

I would agree that it would be better if Charge Only shooters who stand to receive just shoot as normal and it didn't say "files". However, the use of "files" is deliberate to my knowledge.

[LawrenceG]

If an UG charges, then all files in that UG are charging, whether or not they contact anything. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

It's not so obvious that when an UG stands to receive a charge, files that don't get contacted are not standing to receive a charge.

It is counter-intuitive that files that specialise in shooting only when there is a charge don't shoot, but files without that specialisation do.

It also seems inconsistent with the "notional charge" concept attributed to charging lancer and dev charge that stand to receive.

It also means you get different results depending on whether the chargers are exactly aligned with the receivers, or misaligned even by 1 mm (and hence leads to cheese manipulating that). THis applies to the foot crossbow S-kill too.

It would be more mentally ergonomic if charge only shooters shoot on the same basis as other shooters with shoot-and-charge in the charge phase. This could be implemented with no rule wording change simply by interpreting all files in a standing-to-receive UG as standing-to-receive. This would also affect the foot crossbows S-kill, of course.

pdf 7.H.3 just says "Foot crossbows standing to receive a charge get this bonus" no mention of files and it's not even clear that a file with non-shooters in the front rank with crossbows shooting from 2nd and 3rd rank don't get the bonus.

All this could do with being made explicit when the rules are updated.

[lionheartrjc]

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a file has to be contacted to be "standing to receive".  I think that is a case of reading something into the rule that isn't being said.  Standing to receive is "Not having declared a charge, countercharge, intercept, pursued, skirmished or run away." (Glossary definition supplemented by the clarification).

The requirement of S results = Wound is "Foot Xbw standing to receive at those charging them". 

The issue is whether the rule is intended to refer to the file or the UG.  Nik has interpreted this rule as being a file.

1) the XBw must be standing to receive.
2) the XBw must be shooting (at an UG or at a file?) that is charging them, not one that is not charging them.

Appendix 1.L:6  further confuses the issue by talking about files.

I AM INTENDING to issue a clarification that

1)  Would make it clear that it is TuG.  So it will become "S results = Wound is "Foot XBw standing to receive at an UG charging them."
2) Would reword Appendix 1.L:6 so it says "Charge-only shooters only shoot when standing to receive a charge or charging...." and drops the "Files of".

Remember - rule writing is hard.

Richard

[Hayung_is]

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a file has to be contacted to be "standing to receive".  I think that is a case of reading something into the rule that isn't being said.  Standing to receive is "Not having declared a charge, countercharge, intercept, pursued, skirmished or run away." (Glossary definition supplemented by the clarification).

The requirement of S results = Wound is "Foot Xbw standing to receive at those charging them". 

The issue is whether the rule is intended to refer to the file or the UG.  Nik has interpreted this rule as being a file.

1) the XBw must be standing to receive.
2) the XBw must be shooting (at an UG or at a file?) that is charging them, not one that is not charging them.

Appendix 1.L:6  further confuses the issue by talking about files.

I AM INTENDING to issue a clarification that

1)  Would make it clear that it is TuG.  So it will become "S results = Wound is "Foot XBw standing to receive at an UG charging them."
2) Would reword Appendix 1.L:6 so it says "Charge-only shooters only shoot when standing to receive a charge or charging...." and drops the "Files of".

Remember - rule writing is hard.

Richard

That would clear it up! Thank you.

Writing anything in English with absolute clarity is hard

[LawrenceG]

I AM INTENDING to issue a clarification that

1)  Would make it clear that it is TuG.  So it will become "S results = Wound is "Foot XBw standing to receive at an UG charging them."
2) Would reword Appendix 1.L:6 so it says "Charge-only shooters only shoot when standing to receive a charge or charging...." and drops the "Files of".

Remember - rule writing is hard.

Richard

Yes, very hard.

Hence, also need to make clear whether "them" means "the shooting UG " , "the shooting file" or "the shooting base".

[nikgaukroger]

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a file has to be contacted to be "standing to receive". 

Indeed; I rather casually used contacted when they key bit is "charging them" - and that wording is the basis of my view. Have emailed you about possible wrinkles 

[lionheartrjc]

"charging the shooting UG".

Richard

[badhabum]

So if I followed the discussion : all shooting files of a receiving crossbowmen UG get the "S" is a wound if they shoot at the charging UG

And all files of a charge only UG that is charged can shoot even if not contacted as a file but are able to shoot thanks to shooting arc

I reworded it to be foolproof

[nikgaukroger]

Remember - rule writing is hard.

Richard

A mugs game 

[lionheartrjc]

Official Clarifications have been updated.

Richard

[Hayung_is]

Where does one find the official clarifications?

[lionheartrjc]

Where does one find the official clarifications?

https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=2787.0