Archery and charging

Had a situation in a game where at the end of the phase a CM unit was within 5U of a T unit.

At the start of the next phase, if the T unit wins the initiative then are they able to fire on the CM unit? If so I assume that the CM unit can then react and charge(assuming they are not disordered)? Do the T unit still get to fire at point blank as they are NOT opportunity/ZOC firing?

If the CM win initiative then I believe that they can charge the T unit that cannot react as the CM are within 5U?

Yes, the T unit gets to fire at point blank. This is not an opportunity shot in which case only Longbow A get to fire point blank.

CM in good order can reaction charge the T unit firing upon it if it starts within its 5U box at the time of the firing.

The T unit can only react to the CM if the CM is moving in a manner that will not bring it into contact with the T unit. Otherwise, only if it is on opportunity could it fire in response to the CM moving to contact.

Slight mod: Note that only units in good order can react.

No need for any mod Granicus. pw already assumes that the T unit needs to be in good order to make a reaction fire.

For clarity the answer needs to be complete, pw covers it and there is a question mark at the end. for the avoidance of doubt the question needs answering completely.

Grancius, the question mark pertains to whether the CM can reaction charge. The unit being in good order is in brackets and is not part of pw's question (ie. he already knows that the unit needs to be in good order.) No mod is necessary here although if you offered a nice reminder to readers that would have been appreciated.

mod, reminder, is there a difference?

Maybe in Australia they are the same but in North America my experience has been that the one presumes that the information is not totally correct (mod) and the other is for emphasis (reminder.)

Wow, semiotics on a wargames site. Who'd a thunk it?

Hey starkadder, it really shouldn't totally surprise that semiotics is part of wargaming or found on a wargaming site. Wargame rules thrive or perish on their ability to communicate ideas and concepts. I've spent hours reading Impetus trying to accurately determine what the author intends. I spent years trying to determine what Phil Barker intended (without much success I might add!)

No disagreement there, GC.

I was stating the bleeding obvious, I suppose.

Phil's approach to punctuation was the source of much intrigue over the years.

We deconstructed the WRG Horse and Musket rules once. It took several days until we were satisfied with the result. The first appeal was five minutes into the tournament.

It was our experience that English rules writers liked to expound at length with sub-clauses and modifiers. The American writers generally leaned towards tables, lists and point forms. Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses.

I'd be a happy man if Lorenzo could structure Impetus to include a decent index. There are several things that hide in different areas of the base set. Some of them are still in Italian.