Slitherine

At the SOA doubles in Derby over the week-end we had an interesting situation. I had some light foot in a gully. One unit could shoot out at a unit of knights which I wanted to do. Others were faced by an English longbow unit. I did not want to shoot at them. P80 say 'Both players NORMALLY shoot with all bases that are eligable to shoot in the shooting phase'.
The umpire, being the font of all wisdom, aka James Hamiltion, was called over and after much huffing and puffing he ruled that the troops must shoot.
This situation could equally apply to a unit in ambush being forced to reveal itsself by shooting.
The counter arguement would be why is the word 'normally' and not 'always' used in the definition above?
We wish a Merry Christmas to all our readers!

I think you should start a poll asking if people disagree with Hammy. Not what they disagree about, just disagreeing is enough.

When has anyone ever had to shoot? If the second BG doesn't shoot, they are hidden, unless enemy are very close.

Well the rules say any base eligible to shoot, does shoot.

They also say if you shoot, you are visible to who you "shot at" no one else.

With all due respect to the authors.
The difference between normally and always may not have been thought through in detail.

In this case I presume that normally was meant to allow visibility or in combat or such to interupt the always which some may argue mean they shoot even then.

So shooting is mandatory at all times?

I believe so.

nikgaukroger wrote:I believe so.

Even if a BG is in ambush or in concealing terrain?

Blathergut wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I believe so.

Even if a BG is in ambush or in concealing terrain?

If you can see it, you can (must) shoot it.

If you can see it, it can see you.

What is the problem?

Spike

The problem is that a general might want a unit not to shoot in order to maintain their status as concealed unit.
It can be assumed that even without general's guidance troops are clever enough to stay hidden in certain circumstances.
But that's only the fluff argument. Regarding rules, the word "normally" leads to the assumption that there might be exceptions.

I rembered that there was something I wanted to post on the forum. This was it.

The issue was quite complex in that one BG was on the edge of the gully but the gully visibility rules seem to indicate that a BG outside the gully can only see a BG in the gully from 1 MU then there was the issue that the light foot could shoot but if they didn;t they wouldn't be seen.

I am probably wrong in the must shoot ruling as I can't find anything that says you have to shoot but the use of normally is the confusing thing.

In the end I just made a decision to keep the game going. I think this is one of the few questions I have been really stumped by while umpiring. There have been a few where I have had to rule based on the words in the book on conforming which I know we have had an interesting discussion about in the past. Other than that it is normaly "where do these routers/pursuers go?"

If I have a BG of LF with bows in a gully, hidden until enemy are within 1 MU, I might prefer them hidden than to having to shoot when enemy come just inside 6MU. I have never read the rules or had the impression that shooting was mandatory. I don't see how "normally shoot" means "must shoot."

I don't have a problem, just would like someone to give a definitive "yes" or "no", not "I think so". When I saw this mentioned in the first post is the first time I have seen anyone mention "must shoot at all times if possible."

It seems the only time this would come into effect is when a BG is hidden and would be revealed by shooting. Ah, Hammy, I give you credit. I wouldn't want to umpire!!! Seems for every soul out there there is a slightly different interpretation of language!

Thanks for all the input on this. If I could sumarise - a number of players had applied the can shoot must shoot from DBM but it the actual wording of:
'Both players NORMALLY shoot with all bases that are eligable to shoot in the shooting phase' does not support this.
It also seems a bit strange to force ambushes to reveal themselves by shooting.
Could I just say that this is certainly not a critisism of James H who did sterling work over the week-end as always and we, the players, owe him and all other umpires our thanks.

titanu wrote:Could I just say that this is certainly not a critisism of James H who did sterling work over the week-end

Well I liked to think it was until now.

titanu wrote:Thanks for all the input on this. If I could sumarise - a number of players had applied the can shoot must shoot from DBM but it the actual wording of:
'Both players NORMALLY shoot with all bases that are eligable to shoot in the shooting phase' does not support this.

Well FWIW in FoG:R it says "must" to avoid just this issue of reading things into the wording that were not intended by the authors.

nikgaukroger wrote:

titanu wrote:Thanks for all the input on this. If I could sumarise - a number of players had applied the can shoot must shoot from DBM but it the actual wording of:
'Both players NORMALLY shoot with all bases that are eligable to shoot in the shooting phase' does not support this.

Well FWIW in FoG:R it says "must" to avoid just this issue of reading things into the wording that were not intended by the authors.

I far prefer rules to use must or may rather than ambiguous terms like normally.

hammy wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

titanu wrote:Thanks for all the input on this. If I could sumarise - a number of players had applied the can shoot must shoot from DBM but it the actual wording of:
'Both players NORMALLY shoot with all bases that are eligable to shoot in the shooting phase' does not support this.

Well FWIW in FoG:R it says "must" to avoid just this issue of reading things into the wording that were not intended by the authors.

I far prefer rules to use must or may rather than ambiguous terms like normally.

As in:

FOG (not FOGR) wrote:3. The Shooting Phase: Both sides must shoot with any troops able to shoot at enemy bases in this phase.

?

It was a late correction to the FOG wording, which is why the wording in the shooting section is slightly different. The reason it says "must" was to diffuse arguments about whether troops could shoot later if the players forgot them in the shooting phase. As always in wargames rules writing, you can never prevent arguments, all you can do is to shift them elsewhere.

As a side effect, it forces troops in ambush to shoot - but then, there is always some trigger-happy idiot, so that isn't unrealistic. (Unless you wanted to complicate the rules by making them pass a CMT not to shoot).

Thanks for the clarification!

As in:

FOG (not FOGR) wrote:3. The Shooting Phase: Both sides must shoot with any troops able to shoot at enemy bases in this phase.

Thanks for that Richard but where is it? The only '3. Shooting Phase' I can see says is P168 in the turn sequence 'Resolve shooting - both sides shoot.'

titanu wrote:As in:

FOG (not FOGR) wrote:3. The Shooting Phase: Both sides must shoot with any troops able to shoot at enemy bases in this phase.

Thanks for that Richard but where is it? The only '3. Shooting Phase' I can see says is P168 in the turn sequence 'Resolve shooting - both sides shoot.'

P.37

As the player with the Longbow BG as Hammy indicated this issue originally arose over the question of whether my Longbow BG could see the LF Bow. THe Longbow was on the very edge of the gully looking in. As a gully is a depression in the ground I thought I could see the LF Bow within the gully. This created the discussion about visiability and whether a unit had to fire and if it fired the fact that its opponent could see it even if it was more than 1 MU away.

I accepted Hammy's ruling but the question still remains of what the rule writers meant about being 1 MU away. Is it 1 MU between the actual BGs (this seems very short - it is less than for seeing each other in a forest) or 1MU fro the edge of the Gully. This would make it similar to a crest of hill.

Bob