Does a inf/cav unit break as part of the unit Replacement process (A19.13) when entering a Frigid Water Obstacle (B20.7)?

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Hi all,

In another thread there was a debate about what happens to an Infantry/Cavalry unit which enters a frigid Water Obstacle.
Does such a unit break in addition to be replaced by a lesser quality one?
Here are the rules involved.
B20.7 FRIGID/FROZEN ... If Infantry/Cavalry units enter a frigid Water Obstacle without a bridge they are Replaced by the next lower Class unit or Disrupted as per A19.12-13 or Casualty Reduced if incapable of both Replacement and Disruption (e.g., heroic or unarmed units).
A19.13 REPLACEMENT: An unbroken Personnel unit which fails a MC by an amount > its ELR is immediately Replaced by a broken Personnel unit of lesser quality but the same size.
I considered that the unit should break (as the description of Replacement includes the breaking of the unit), but benj pointed that in the case of Ammo Shortage (A19.131) clearly implies that a Replaced unit due to Ammo Shortage is not broken - with of course an exception.
19.131 AMMUNITION SHORTAGES: Unit Replacement can also occur if a SSR cites a side's on board OB as being afflicted by Ammunition Shortages, in which case any MMC of that side which rolls an Original 12 DR on the IFT while using its Inherent FP suffers Unit Replacement after the attack which caused it is resolved. Any MMC subject to, but incapable of, further quality loss is broken after resolution of the attack, unless berserk.
Another argument in favour of not breaking the unit is the Index definition, which doesn't speak of breaking.

Replacement (the changing of a Personnel unit to another Personnel unit with at least one lesser number in one Strength Factor and no greater number in any other Strength Factor; an MMC's Class must also decrease)
So I tend now to think that infantry/cavalry entering a frigid Water Obstacle is not systematically broken (unless the exceptions cited in the rules kick in).
But I find the A19.13 wording for the least misleading, as it is referred to by some other rule paragraphs : Replacement process should be separated from the breaking aspect.

What do you think?
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
no, it's not systematically broken for wading in frigid water because no MC is taken -- no MC is called for here. Failing an MC by more than ELR is just another way (the main way) units can be replaced. the other two ways (there may be others?) are frigid water and ammo shortage as you have indicated.
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
801
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
...But I find the A19.13 wording for the least misleading, as it is referred to by some other rule paragraphs : Replacement process should be separated from the breaking aspect.

What do you think?
I completely agree with how you reasoned through this - especially the citation of the index definition. "Replacement", in and of itself, does not require "breaking." It's just that the latter is typically the catalyst to the former...

As for the wording of A19.13, it seems clear enough to me, as I don't read any of it as attempting a textbook definition of Replacement. For that they gave us the index.

A19.13 is demonstrating the process whereby a unit which suffers ELR-failure upon breaking (and is thus already broken) is replaced. I guess the rule skips the step where you first break the unit and then Replace the broken unit. So if you want an even clearer paragraph, they could insert that inevitably-to-be-skipped step just so the process of Replacement could be written out clearly, separate, and uncontaminated by other processes.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
There should be an independent definition of Unit Replacement, to which all different rules refer to.
Mixing it up with breaking and referring to that mixed up reference is confusing.
I played it wrong up to now because an opponent insisted that breaking was part of the process, which A19.13 taken alone can suppport.
Now the impact on my games is rather light, as even replacing a unit by a lower quality one without breaking it is not the best of prospects.
 

Honosbinda

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
954
Reaction score
295
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Not to mention that we can count on one hand the number of 'frigid water' scenarios.

However, and probably unusually, I disagree that the rule is unclear as written. The process is clear -- in ELR replacement, first the unit breaks, then is replaced. In frigid water, the unit goes in the water, and is then replaced. Ammo shortage, roll high, then the unit is replaced. Neither rule says anything about the unit taking an NMC or becoming broken, then replaced.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,597
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Cross referencing the different rules paragraphs makes things clear indeed.
 
Top