A 20.5 - prisoners and CX status

CHERDE

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
874
Reaction score
42
Location
The Ruhr
Country
llGermany
If a guard goes CX and forces their prisoners to move 6 MF with them : Do the prisoners go CX?

A 19.3 and 20.53 give clues to the right answer but I am not sure.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
CHERDE said:
If a guard goes CX and forces their prisoners to move 6 MF with them : Do the prisoners go CX?
No. A20.53 says "All prisoners move at the foot rate (not the Cavalry rate) of their accompanying Guard as one combined stack". This means that they always have the same MF as the Guard, without having to go CX.
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
On this one, I'm not convinced. The prisoners move at their guard's foot rate, true, but does that mean they don't suffer any consequences for moving at this rate? Ole says "No, there aren't consequences." The rules are silent regarding 'cx'/double-time. If guards Advance in Difficult Terrain[A4.72], they become 'cx' but the prisoners don't? I'd assume the prisoners are placed under a 'cx' counter.

But, it's hard to imagine a situation in which it makes a difference. Are these prisoners now in CC and may or may not have to add a +1DRM depending on this ruling? Are they hard at work digging foxholes and missed the DR by one? Are guarded prisoners "units" (counters capable of movement with their own MF?MPs?)

I, of course(!), am open to rules citations to convince me otherwise. . .
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
No. A20.53 says "All prisoners move at the foot rate (not the Cavalry rate) of their accompanying Guard as one combined stack". This means that they always have the same MF as the Guard, without having to go CX.
I wonder how you glean that meaning.

To me, it means that where the Guards goes, the prisoners go. The prisoners share the same status, IMO. If the Guard moves to CX, so do the prisoners.

I am currently NRBH, but I can never remember coming across anything to suggest that a prisoner also would not share CX status with its Guard.

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

CHERDE

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
874
Reaction score
42
Location
The Ruhr
Country
llGermany
think...

I try to give some thoughts (RBH):

A 4.5: Infantry can go Double Time=CX at the start of ITS MPh or after expanding MPh in ITS MPh. The owner of the INfantry declares Double Time.
This shows that only the guard can declare Double Time.

A 20.53 shows that the prisoners are totally depending on the guards movement. IMO even to the extend of moving 8MF with a guard CX Hero - altough in "free" status they would have only 5 or 6 MF at most (A 19.3 - BTW: are unarmed untis green or conscripts ?!) - that is without friendly leader Bonus.

From the index I conclude that a prisoner is an unit and is Infantry.


I play it the way that the prisoner is never CX because they depend from the guard ( to the extent that a wounded SMC is moved more than 3 MF with its guard without being carried - A 17.2).

Also brokies lose CX immediately - if rallied immediately they use Double Time two consecutive Game turns.
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
My questioning of whether it would make a difference or not had an error regarding the 'Task' +1DRM for 'cx' status as the guards would be working with the prisoners and the gurads' 'cx' status would add the '1'DRM.

But there's a potential 'sleeze' tactic if VCs rely on exiting a certain CVP. Prisoners shouldn't be able to double-time two or more MPhs in a row. Transferring prisoners--in effect passing them off in some sort of relay--and 'cx'ing the (new)guards would, in effect, give the prisoners too much movement. There's no guarantee that a broken(formerly 'cx'd unit)will rally and get two consecutive double-time MPhs; your point is well taken, though, CHERDE.

Now, there are sleeze opportunities in ASL, so just because it seems sleezy to me doesn't mean it's illegal. And this is sure a convoluted situation I've dreamed up. But, I'm sure it's come up before, or will come up in the future--CHERDE wouldn't have asked if it doesn't make a difference. Well, probably he wouldn't have. . .

I stand by my assertion that A4.72 would cause 'cx' status to prisoners though. Do you agree with that, CHERDE? Seems that prisoners are not exempt from 'cx' status in this case. Why would they in the MPh?
 
Last edited:

CHERDE

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
874
Reaction score
42
Location
The Ruhr
Country
llGermany
prisoner escapes

IMHO regarding A 4.72 the prisoner is not CX when the guard advances with the prisoner in difficult terrain, because of A 20.53. The prisoner moves at the foot rate af the guard. So the prisoner has no MF on its own to spend.


The situation leading to this thread is one of prisoners wanting to attack their broken guard in CC. The prisoners dont want the +1DRM to their CC DR.
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
Hopefully, at this point, you've rolled the CC attack and it didn't make a difference; if it did, you invoked the 'friendly dr' rule! :D

But, look, part of A4.72 specifies >=4MFs. It doesn't matter if a prisoner has O, 3, or 4MFs inherently; if it Advances with its guards uphill into a building, they're 'cx', right?

We should play sometime, CHERDE. . . :devious:
 

CHERDE

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
874
Reaction score
42
Location
The Ruhr
Country
llGermany
yes of course my guard suffered the CC attack and was KIAed.

The concept of the friendly dr rule is new to me. would You like to explain it?

Regarding A 4.72 I now tend to agree with You. I was thinking about it on my jogging tour today. CX for difficult terrain advance is different from CX due to Double Time.

But still we have to solve the gereral problem of prisoners and CX status.

Can perhaps bebakken and Ole further support their causes?

I would like to have an easy solution, if possible.


And yes alanp we should play a match. But I have not that many experience, playing mostly solo, have no VASL and have not the traits "multi-dimensional" or "tranzendent".
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Note that Prisoners are not being carried like you would carry Squad Weapons. They are moved by the captor at the direction of the captor. While they don't apply to overstacking limits, they are counters that acquire the move rate (is that aka for MF?) of the Guard. I would think that would be the base rate of the captor. That avoids 3MF Inexperienced MMCs slowing down better quality MMCs.
 

CHERDE

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
874
Reaction score
42
Location
The Ruhr
Country
llGermany
suggestion of solution

Yes - for ease of play one should allow the guards to force the prisoners to move up to the MF of the guards. The prisoners must not slow down the guards ("schneller, schneller").


This would also adress the problem mentioned by me earlier (10dec):

"...A 20.53 shows that the prisoners are totally depending on the guards movement. IMO even to the extend of moving 8MF with a guard CX Hero - altough in "free" status they would have only 5 or 6 MF at most (A 19.3 - BTW: are unarmed untis green or conscripts ?!) - that is without friendly leader Bonus...."

That is a CX Hero forces a wounded SMC to move 8 MF .

:devil: - hopefully not against Geneva Convention or an atrocity or an Massacre / no quarter event.


When a prisoner exeeds 4 MF (prisoner MMC) or 6 MF (prisoner SMC) or 3 MF (wounded prisoner SMC) the prisoner gets CX status.
This may differ from the CX status of the guard, eg. when guard carries SW for 5 PP. - more:nuts:
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
CHERDE said:
Can perhaps bebakken and Ole further support their causes?
What's difficult is that "foot rate" has no meaning. I don't know what "foot rate" is.

I know what MF allotment is. I also know that escaped Unarmed units are treated as Inexperienced for movement, i.e. have a MF allotment of 3 (A19.31).

To me, the "foot rate" refers to the MF allotment of the Guard, and that's about all I can say on it because "foot rate" is otherwise undefined.

A Guard's MF allotment (i.e. "foot rate") can be increased by using Double Time. In effect, Double Time increases the Guard's "foot rate", but with a penalty. Since the Guard and the Prisoner are required to move as a stack, it just seems to me that in order for the Prisoner to keep up with the Guard's "foot rate", the Prisoner would also have to declare and use Double Time.

That's about all I can come up with right now. Perhaps that will be clarified when the much-vaunted re-write of A20 occurs....

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
bebakken said:
What's difficult is that "foot rate" has no meaning. I don't know what "foot rate" is.
Foot rate means that they pay MF costs as Infantry on the Chapter B/F/G charts. It is defined in the first sentence of A20.53. This is because Cavalry can Guard prisoners.

So there are two questions:

1) When guarding prisioners, are Guards limited by the 3 MF allotment of the Unarmed units?

2) If the Guard Double Times/Advances vs. Difficult Terrain/Minimum Moves is the Unarmed unit also CX?

Now the wording in A20.5 is kind of sloppy about using Unarmed and Prisioner, but in reading through it Prisioner is a subset of Unarmed, so I would say yes, 3 MF is the normal allotment of a Prisioner as well.

Because a Prisioner shares the status of the Guard WRT TI/Hazardous Movement/Pin, it seems reasonable to assume that CX applies as well since it is not specifically excluded.

However, I have never seen anyone (including myself) place a CX counter on a Prisioner nor limit the Guard to 3 MF. So in the absence of further clarification I will probably put CX counters on the Prisioner but not limit the Guard to 3 MF since I think that might have an effect on some scenarios.
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
WaterRabbit said:
Foot rate means that they pay MF costs as Infantry on the Chapter B/F/G charts. It is defined in the first sentence of A20.53. This is because Cavalry can Guard prisoners.
Ah, that makes sense. It refers to movement cost , and not movement allotment . I can deal with that. It seems to make sense, though it could (should) be stated better.


WaterRabbit said:
1) When guarding prisioners, are Guards limited by the 3 MF allotment of the Unarmed units?
Inexperienced Personnel Restrictions only applies to "abandoned prisoners". So while they are Guarded, I conclude they are governed by Infantry Movement for MMC (i.e. A4.1 - .11). The problem with that conclusion is that when captured, the Unarmed units are not in Good Order; therefore, since A4.11 applies to Good Order MMC, it would appear that Prisoners are not governed by A4.11, but of course the Guards are.

WaterRabbit said:
2) If the Guard Double Times/Advances vs. Difficult Terrain/Minimum Moves is the Unarmed unit also CX?
I believe "yes", though it is very difficult to prove using the ASLRB. What a surprise.

I find I have nothing more useful to add to this discussion, since I can't find anything to back up my opinion!

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
WaterRabbit said:
Foot rate means that they pay MF costs as Infantry on the Chapter B/F/G charts. It is defined in the first sentence of A20.53. This is because Cavalry can Guard prisoners.
I understand the first sentence slightly different, and understand it to mean that the Guard can always move as far as its Guard (if the Guard is not Cavalry).

So there are two questions:

1) When guarding prisioners, are Guards limited by the 3 MF allotment of the Unarmed units?
No, "All prisoners move at the foot rate (not the Cavalry rate) of their accompanying Guard", thus if the Guard has X MF, the Prisoner effectively has the same amount. That's why a Double Timing Hero with 8 MF can get the Prisoner to move with him without having to make the Prisoner CX - they simply move at the hero's foot rate.

2) If the Guard Double Times/Advances vs. Difficult Terrain/Minimum Moves is the Unarmed unit also CX?
I would generally say so. If the advance cost is >= 4 MF, the rule calls for CX regardless of whether the unit is a prisoner or not.

Now the wording in A20.5 is kind of sloppy about using Unarmed and Prisioner, but in reading through it Prisioner is a subset of Unarmed, so I would say yes, 3 MF is the normal allotment of a Prisioner as well.
I agree with the sloppiness, but I take "move at the foot rate ... of their Guard" to mean that they simply inherit their Guard's MF.

Because a Prisioner shares the status of the Guard WRT TI/Hazardous Movement/Pin, it seems reasonable to assume that CX applies as well since it is not specifically excluded.
I agree that it might be reasonable, but unless there is a general rule, only those mentioned applies - thus not CX.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Because a Prisioner shares the status of the Guard WRT TI/Hazardous Movement/Pin, it seems reasonable to assume that CX applies as well since it is not specifically excluded.
I agree that it might be reasonable, but unless there is a general rule, only those mentioned applies - thus not CX.
Or more specifically, since the Guard shares the status of the Prisoner with respect to entrenchments or clearing rubble (even though they are apparently doing nothing), it seems pretty odd that the Guards can be CX and the Prisoner not.
 
Top