Elite, ELR, CR and Possession

[revaddict]

An Elite squad in Possession of a SW fails its ELR on an MC and is therefore split into to HS of the same strength. That same MC roll was a 6,6 and thus CR must come into play. Who now Possesses the SW? And is one of the new HS eliminated due to CR? Does Random Selection determine which of the HS is eliminated?

Paul

 

[Larry]

A10.31 (V1) -- original 12 causes a CR.

The fact that the unit is elite does not change the ELR results. Only if the morale is underlined does the break into two HS happen. A19.13. Assuming the unit has an underscored ML, the HS left over is disrupted since it cannot be replaced. A19.13.

A4.43 (V.1) does not deal with the situation. I would play it that the now disrupted HS has possession of the SW because he was part of the personnel unit that had possession immediately before the attack.

 

[revaddict]

A10.31 (V1) -- original 12 causes a CR.

The fact that the unit is elite does not change the ELR results. Only if the morale is underlined does the break into two HS happen. A19.13. Assuming the unit has an underscored ML, the HS left over is disrupted since it cannot be replaced. A19.13.

A4.43 (V.1) does not deal with the situation. I would play it that the now disrupted HS has possession of the SW because he was part of the personnel unit that had possession immediately before the attack.

My mistake about the underscored ML--I had in mind an American 7-4-7 paratrooper squad. But the question is the same.

If you roll an original 12 and also have to ELR, the ELR comes first according to A10.31 (v1). So, following that sequence, the 7-4-7 becomes 2 HS of 3-4-7. The SW then obviously is in possession of one of those HS. But how then do you account for CR? Does the last sentence of the EXC in A19.13 refer to this? ("A Casualty MC failure which also exceeds a squad's ELR causes that squad to be Reduced to a broken HS of lesser quality.") In other words, does a ELR failure that also requires CR result in the underlined ML squad being reduced to a single HS of lesser quality?

 

[rdw5150]

hi!

IMHO, the 6,6 results CRs the squad (747) before it is ELRed.

So, it would be reduced, the surviving hald squad would then ELR and still have the SW.

No rule book handy to back this up (I am at work), but seems like the CR would take effect BEFORE the ELR replacement.

Peace

Roger

 

[rdw5150]

Oh I forgot that the squad had underlined Morale, so he would be disrupted I guess, but still has the SW.

Weird, you would think that would have happened to me before (I roll so many 6,6's)

Peace

Roger

 

[The Purist]

Both the CR and the ELR failure need to be accounted for in the result. Split the squad into 2 HS, use RS to see who gets the SW, use RS to see who suffers the CR and then that should be it. If you also apply the 'Disruption' to the surviving HS I think you are applying the ELR failure twice.

Having an underlined ELR of 5 simply makes the squad more resilient, in this case, than your normal first line riflemen.

Perhaps Ole, Bruce B or one of our other rules gurus can clarify more but that is my take on the rule as written.

 

[rdw5150]

OK I forgot I have a V1 RB at work.

A19.13 states that a Casualty MC (10.31) failure which exceeds the squad's ELR (No exceptions noted in rules, which I would think there would be if underlined Morale effected a casualty MC) results in Reduced half squad of lesser quality.

My reading of A19.13 would be that the underlined morale is not taken into account if there is a 6,6 rolled.

Thus is we COWTRA, if a squad with underlined Morale rolls 6,6, it is reduced to a half squad of lesser quality.

Of course now we have to ask ourselves, does it disrupt or is it replaced with a green/conscript squad:>)

I guess thats why we love this game:>)

Peace

Roger

 

[rdw5150]

"Having an underlined ELR of 5 simply makes the squad more resilient, in this case, than your normal first line riflemen."

It would seem not in the case of a 6,6 MC

Take our example, a 747 rolls a 6,6, thus is split into two HS and the still alive HS is disrupted.

Where a "normal" 1st line troop rolls a 6,6 is reduced to a 2nd line HS.

Personaly, I think that disrupted is worse than reduced in quality.

But that is just my opinion

Peace

Rog

 

[revaddict]

Both the CR and the ELR failure need to be accounted for in the result. Split the squad into 2 HS, use RS to see who gets the SW, use RS to see who suffers the CR and then that should be it. If you also apply the 'Disruption' to the surviving HS I think you are applying the ELR failure twice.

Having an underlined ELR of 5 simply makes the squad more resilient, in this case, than your normal first line riflemen.

Perhaps Ole, Bruce B or one of our other rules gurus can clarify more but that is my take on the rule as written.

I think I have to agree with the Purist on this one. This way you do the ELR first (which A10.31 says happens BEFORE ELR) and you account for the CR by eliminating one of the resulting HS. I see no need to apply Disruption because you already suffered ELR by dividing into 2 HS.

This is, by the way, my VASL opponent and I have played this. It has happened TWICE in our current game.

Paul

 

[rdw5150]

OK I understand now what the Purist is saying, that by splitting into two HS, you have taken the ELR failure into account.

Whereas if you split into two HS and then disrupt the remain HS, you are ELRing them twice.

hmmmmm

But the CR would have split the squad anyway, in a way, it seems that is not taking into account the ELR failure

Peace

Rog

 

[The Purist]

But the CR would have split the squad anyway, in a way, it seems that is not taking into account the ELR failure

ELR substitutions are completed prior to the CR. Which is why I said the squad with an underlined morale (ELR 5) is more resilient than your average 1st line riflemen.

 

[bprobst]

Both the CR and the ELR failure need to be accounted for in the result. Split the squad into 2 HS

Yes ....

use RS to see who gets the SW

No ....

If you also apply the 'Disruption' to the surviving HS I think you are applying the ELR failure twice.

No. NRBH, but I'm 99% sure that the Casualty Reduction (Fate) applies first; the ELR failure applies to the survivors.

It's one of the little oddities in ASL that surviving units always possess the SW. Just as if you score a K/1 result on a squad with the MG, you don't randomly determine whether the eliminated HS or the remaining HS is the one holding the MG -- the surviving HS always has possession.

So too in this case. Apply the Fate result first (squad CRs into HS, which still possesses the SW), then apply the ELR failure (HS breaks and disrupts because it can't reduce in quality). (Note that some troop types are immune to Disruption, so they would be merely broken.)

Rolling a 12 is bad news. Rolling a 12 that also exceeds your ELR is even worse. But no matter what, the survivors hang on to their support weapons with grim determination.

 

[revaddict]

NRBH, but I'm 99% sure that the Casualty Reduction (Fate) applies first; the ELR failure applies to the survivors.

But A10.31 makes it clear that ELR takes place first...unless there is a change in ASLRB2. So I'm sticking with the Purist on this one.

 

[The Purist]

Well, let's just confirm what the "Tome of All Knowledge, v2" says on this issue,....

:hmmm: hum-humming,....rum-rummaging. It's around here somewhere,...ahah!

<flip-flip-flip> A10.31,....A10.31,...uhuh, here it is.

<huzub-zub-zub-zub-zub> bloody exceptions,....<huzub-zub-zub>.

<Ahem> Well then, that does seem pretty clear then, doesn't it. I quote:

" A10.31 CASUALTY MC:If an unbroken Personnel unit rolls an Original 12 during an MC, it suffers Casualty Reduction and is broken (or eliminated if not subject to breaking) [EXC: <snip bit about heroes, berserk SMC and Japanese] -after any unit Replacement which may also be required by ELR failure (19.13). <snip part about broken units>."


Bold italics are mine.

That, I suppose, is that. Deploy into two HS (for ELR failure)and use RS for determining who is CR'd. Rule is not specific about the SW but I suspect RS to determine possession.

 

[bprobst]

OK, I got the order wrong. Nevertheless, you don't use RS; that implies that both HS may end up dying. Only a single HS is eliminated (as per this Q&A).

***
A10.31 & A19.13 If an unbroken 6-5-8 SS squad (with its normal 5 ELR) suffers a Casualty MC that also exceeds its ELR, is it Replaced by a broken 3-4-8 SS HS?

A. Yes. {96}
***

And, as per the general ASL principle I stated earlier, that surviving HS automatically has possession, just as if the squad had been the target of a K/1 attack. No need to "randomly determine" anything; the squad+SW is replaced by a broken HS+SW.

 

[The Purist]

...as per the general ASL principle I stated earlier, that surviving HS automatically has possession, just as if the squad had been the target of a K/1 attack. No need to "randomly determine" anything; the squad+SW is replaced by a broken HS+SW.

Works for me.

 

[CHERDE]

bprobst is correct.


but I want to point out that the Q+A from Annual 96 is neccessary to rectify this result.


Without the Q+A you would first ELR (A 10.31) the Squad into two HS (now distribute the SW),
who would then each suffer the CRed MC (RS for the two HS),
i.e. they would the broken and by virtue of the RS possibly both elim.:shock:

At most one broken, not-disrupted HS would survive which may or may not have the SW.

 

[bprobst]

Uh, no, you wouldn't. That's why the Q&A says what it says. There's nothing in the rules to indicate that any of that would apply. Fate applies to a unit, i.e., the original squad that rolled the 12. It does not apply randomly to its component HS. You never use RS to determine who's left holding the SW after a CR result. It's just not the way the game plays.

 

[CHERDE]

I want to point out that the Q+A from Annual 96 is neccessary to rectify this result.

just repeating this to clarify.

 

[bprobst]

Apparently I wasn't clear: if you mean "clarify what the 2nd edition already says" -- no, you're still mistaken. If that Q&A never existed, you still wouldn't use RS. There is no support in the rules for that procedure, and never has been.

You're getting the right answer, but you're getting it for the wrong reasons.