A20.5, 20.55 - Prisoners in CC, escape, rearming

[SlyFrog]

[NOTE: MADE A COUPLE OF EDITS TO THIS WHERE THERE WERE ERRORS IN MY RECOUNTING TO PREVENT CONFUSION THAT BRET POINTS OUT BELOW]

Generally speaking, I'd love any commentary on what you see below, if we screwed it up, got it right, etc. We're trying very hard to play by the rules (and, though it may not seem so from my endless stream of questions), find the answers ourselves first.

Please note that I understand many of these actions were quite stupid from a tactical sense, but I will learn tactics once I get the rules down.

I looked through some past threads on this, seems to be a lot of confusion on the subject generally. I would agree that it is not the best written section of the rule book, but I am sympathetic as I think part of that is the large number of possible scenarios and outcomes.

The main question here is on rearming, but I'll run through the entire little scenario because we did some other things that were slightly questionable that we think we got right in the end.

A German 8-0 leader and a German 2-4-7 half-squad, guarding a Russian half-squad prisoners, advance into CC with a 4-4-7 Russian squad carrying a HMG.

Okay, first turn of CC. Because they are advancing into a building, we roll for ambush. Russian player rolls a 2, German player rolls a 5. So the Germans are ambushed.

Then, sequential combat (due to the ambush). Russians declare that their 4-4-7 will attack the 2-4-7. Attacking at a 2-1, they need a 7 or higher. They roll a '4', eliminating the half-squad.

The half-squad prisoner unit is accepted by the 8-0 leader pursuant to A20.5. We assume this can happen due to the following: "Should the Guard unit be eliminated, any unit capable of accepting their transfer (disregarding phase) may immediately assume the Guard position." The half-squad is not more than 5 times the US# of the SMC (A20.51), and the SMC is permitted to hold a prisoner (A20.5).

Now it is the German SMC's turn in sequential combat. Assuming that he can not attack the prisoner half-squad with a 1 to 2 attack (as his 1 FP is halved on the attack (A20.52)) due to rule A20.4 ("Only SS, Japanese, Partisan, Russian, or berserk Infantry/Cavalry -- if not in Melee -- may eliminate an unarmed unit in their Location not in the act of escape"), he realizes that he can not attack the Russian 4-4-7 successfully, as he would need a "1" on a DR because of the 1 to 8 odds (German SMC's FP being halved for guarding a prisoner with a greater US# than his, making it .5 to 4 FP).

So they are locked in melee. The next turn comes around.

This time, the prisoner can attempt to attack directly, as they are in melee and no NTC is needed.

Prisoners attack sequentially, and based on my review of previous threads, we know there is some debate as to whether that means the prisoner's entire side can attack together sequentially, or whether the prisoner can only attack alone first (but without other units, here the Russian 4-4-7 joining in) or instead choose to wait for normal combat and combine with the other friendly units.

We choose the former interpretation, that the only unit that can attack sequentially is the prisoner unit. The prisoner unit attacks the SMC at 1 to 1 odds, but rolls an 11, missing. Next comes the "normal" simultaneous combat. The Russian 4-4-7 attacks the SMC at 4 to 1 odds (because only the SMC's attack FP is halved, not defense) and rolls a '3', killing the SMC. The SMC attempts to attack the prisoner unit at a 1 to 2, but rolls a '12'. Normally this would mean the enemy unit could withdraw, but as the SMC has been killed here, it does not really matter. The melee is over.

Now we have a Russian half-squad prisoner unit that is sitting in a hex with a Russian 4-4-7 holding a HMG, with the Russian 4-4-7 having just killed a German half-squad in CC the turn before, and German SMC in melee this turn.

Though we likely screwed up some other things, the rearming part seems to be the most confusing. We understand that we now have an unarmed Russian half-squad running around at a minimum. The question, per A20.551, is whether they rearmed. We assumed that, though it seems strange, by technical compliance with the rule, they do not.

A20.551 says, "One attacking Unarmed friendly unit of equal or smaller size is rearmed immediately for each armed enemy unit it eliminated/captured in CC (or by any other means if no other enemy unit is currently in the same Location), but the unarmed unit is replaced with a Green or Conscript squad/HS of its size and nationality (complete with any inherent SW)."

Here, the prisoner half-squad did not eliminate anyone. We had a question as to what exactly "or by any other means if no other enemy unit is currently in the same location." I read in another thread here that, for example, if a unit guarding a prisoner were eliminated by sniper, that could trigger that parenthetical. But I do not think the unarmed friendly unit did anything here, it did not eliminate either of the SMC (which would not be enough to rearm it anyway) or the half-squad through CC or any other way, another squad did.

So we assume that it is not rearmed, even though it seems a bit guilty in that a half-squad was eliminated in that same space the turn before in CC, and the prisoner and Russian 4-4-7 are the only units left in that space at the end of the melee the turn later.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

I'll try to highlight the mistakes. Stuff I snipped I didn't disagree with...

The prisoners try to attack the guards. However, they must roll a NTC and fail, rolling a 9.

Prisoners only roll NTC's to attack broken units. In the first round of CC, prisoners don't get to attack - it's only once things turn into a melee that they get to attack and automatically turn the melee into sequential CC. Basically the prisoner shouldn't have attempted the NTC here.

Then, sequential combat (due to the ambush). Russians declare that their 4-4-7 will attack the 2-4-7. Attacking at a 2-1, they need a 7 or higher. They roll a 9, eliminating the half-squad.

Leaders may always defend with (and attack with) an MMC so unless the leader specifically opted to attack on his own (very rare, but I've done it on occasion in the right situation - being ambushed like this isn't the right situation BTW), this should have been a 4:3 attack which is on the 1:1 column rather than 2:1, -1 for ambush of course.

And most importantly to eliminate an enemy unit you have to roll LESS THAN the CC # - not greater. Equal results in a K result. In your scenario the 247 should still have been amongst the living on the 9 DR. I'm guessing maybe you just transcribed the above wrong since below you have an 11 missing.

Prisoners attack sequentially, and based on my review of previous threads, we know there is some debate as to whether that means the prisoner's entire side can attack together sequentially, or whether the prisoner can only attack alone first (but without other units, here the Russian 4-4-7 joining in) or instead choose to wait for normal combat and combine with the other friendly units.

I'm of the opinion that the 447 can combine with the prisoner for such an attack FWIW.

We choose the former interpretation, that the only unit that can attack sequentially is the prisoner unit. The prisoner unit attacks the SMC at 1 to 1 odds, but rolls an 11, missing. Next comes the "normal" simultaneous combat. The Russian 4-4-7 attacks the SMC at 4 to 1 odds (because only the SMC's attack FP is halved, not defense) and rolls a '3', killing the SMC. The SMC attempts to attack the prisoner unit at a 1 to 2, but rolls a '12'. Normally this would mean the enemy unit could withdraw, but as the SMC has been killed here, it does not really matter. The melee is over.

Once CC is sequential there isn't a "simultaneous" phase. I'd have played the above as the prisoner & 447 combine for a 5:1 attack (which drops to 4:1) and thus they need a 9. If the leader survives, he'd get to attack back. Don't forget the clause that a unit cannot be attacked more than once in CC which forces you to combine the attacks.

Though we likely screwed up some other things, the rearming part seems to be the most confusing. We understand that we now have an unarmed Russian half-squad running around at a minimum. The question, per A20.551, is whether they rearmed. We assumed that, though it seems strange, by technical compliance with the rule, they do not.

Correct. There's no "memory" that the half squad died there the turn before. Just that the leader died and he's not sufficient to rearm a HS.

Here, the prisoner half-squad did not eliminate anyone. We had a question as to what exactly "or by any other means if no other enemy unit is currently in the same location." I read in another thread here that, for example, if a unit guarding a prisoner were eliminated by sniper, that could trigger that parenthetical. But I do not think the unarmed friendly unit did anything here, it did not eliminate either of the SMC (which would not be enough to rearm it anyway) or the half-squad through CC or any other way, another squad did.

If the 447 had killed the German Half squad and the leader was not present, that would also have been by any other means and allowed the prisoners to rearm as well. Or if their guard was double broken (and they weren't eliminated) or eliminated for failure to rout, etc. they could rearm. At this point they could just run around and attempt to roll eyes and scrounge up small arms...

 

[SlyFrog]

I'll try to highlight the mistakes. Stuff I snipped I didn't disagree with...


Prisoners only roll NTC's to attack broken units. In the first round of CC, prisoners don't get to attack - it's only once things turn into a melee that they get to attack and automatically turn the melee into sequential CC. Basically the prisoner shouldn't have attempted the NTC here.

Right. Said in Chris Farley voice, "Man, I kneeewww that!" As I am typing from work, I'm actually hoping that I did it right last night and stated it incorrectly this morning. My exact memory is a bit foggy, I just wanted to get everything down, am fascinated with prisoner NTC checks, and therefore may have thrown that in by accident. :laugh:

Leaders may always defend with (and attack with) an MMC so unless the leader specifically opted to attack on his own (very rare, but I've done it on occasion in the right situation - being ambushed like this isn't the right situation BTW), this should have been a 4:3 attack which is on the 1:1 column rather than 2:1, -1 for ambush of course.

And most importantly to eliminate an enemy unit you have to roll LESS THAN the CC # - not greater. Equal results in a K result. In your scenario the 247 should still have been amongst the living on the 9 DR. I'm guessing maybe you just transcribed the above wrong since below you have an 11 missing.

We did remember the ambush modifier. The leader attacked alone, because the half-squad was dead and it was sequential combat, so the half-squad was taken out leaving only the leader in the German side of the sequential CC round.

Most importantly, you are correct that we did do the table correctly, and I screwed up the statement of the die roll. I knew I should have written this last night (or at least written down the exact results). :angry:

I'm of the opinion that the 447 can combine with the prisoner for such an attack FWIW.

Once CC is sequential there isn't a "simultaneous" phase. I'd have played the above as the prisoner & 447 combine for a 5:1 attack (which drops to 4:1) and thus they need a 9. If the leader survives, he'd get to attack back. Don't forget the clause that a unit cannot be attacked more than once in CC which forces you to combine the attacks.

Just so we're clear, paragraph two depends on your interpretation in paragraph one, correct? I'm not dismissing your interpretation, I just want to be sure I'm following the logic.

 

[Bret Hildebran]

We did remember the ambush modifier. The leader attacked alone, because the half-squad was dead and it was sequential combat, so the half-squad was taken out leaving only the leader in the German side of the sequential CC round.

My biggest point there was normally (say 98% of the time) the leader would defend with the half squad & thus share his fate (barring a K which randomly selected the halfer). Typically the German would have designated the leader as defending with the squad and thus they MUST be attacked together - the Russian could NOT just attack the halfer, but must hit them both. Given in this case the odds change from 2:1 to 1:1, it would have been prudent for the German leader to defend with the half squad. In the odd case where the German halfer dies & only the leader is left, then yes in sequential CC the leader would attack alone.

Just so we're clear, paragraph two depends on your interpretation in paragraph one, correct? I'm not dismissing your interpretation, I just want to be sure I'm following the logic.

If I'm understanding you right, then no there isn't that dependency. The prisoner & 447 could combine their attack, but regardless of that fact, there is not a sequential part of CC and a simultaneous (with the exception, this being ASL there's always an exception, of 2s & 12s in simultaneous CC) one that comes after. It's either sequential or simultaneous.

Sequential let's the prisoner attack first, then the German, then the Russians, etc. In this case there's only 2 stages though, but say you had Prisoner, 2x447 vs. 2x468 you could have a sequence of prisoner + 447 attack 1 468, then the 468 guard attacks the prisoner, then the other 447 attacks the non-guard 468 & finally the last 468 attacks a 447. It's all sequential, with each side taking turns...

You'd actually want to sequence it where the non-guard 468 attacked next since he could be eliminated in the next round, but you get the idea...

 

[SlyFrog]

My biggest point there was normally (say 98% of the time) the leader would defend with the half squad & thus share his fate (barring a K which randomly selected the halfer). Typically the German would have designated the leader as defending with the squad and thus they MUST be attacked together - the Russian could NOT just attack the halfer, but must hit them both. Given in this case the odds change from 2:1 to 1:1, it would have been prudent for the German leader to defend with the half squad. In the odd case where the German halfer dies & only the leader is left, then yes in sequential CC the leader would attack alone.

Gotcha. Effectively, you are noting that we did not give the defender the option (which is his) to say up front that the leader and the squad are together, and that they can therefore not be attacked separately (or of course, attack separately). It was probably the sequential aspect that made us forget that, as we were thinking that attacker declares what it wants to do first, not recalling that pairing leaders with squads is separate from that process.

If I'm understanding you right, then no there isn't that dependency. The prisoner & 447 could combine their attack, but regardless of that fact, there is not a sequential part of CC and a simultaneous (with the exception, this being ASL there's always an exception, of 2s & 12s in simultaneous CC) one that comes after. It's either sequential or simultaneous.

I'm not sure you are. My whole point is that I thought there were people who viewed prisoners as being a unique situation where sequential followed by simultaneous could occur (but only the prisoners could attack in the sequential part, they could not drag other units into it). Maybe I misread those other posts, I just thought there was a split of opinion on that.