LLMC on Surrender attempt

[tipsyweasel]

Here is another interesting situation that came up recently.

A leader is stacked with an MMC. The stack is fired upon, and the leader rolls for HoB. He gets a Surrender result. There is indeed an enemy infantry unit adjacent, so the leader offers to be taken prisoner.

The enemy unit invokes No Quarter, so the leader is eliminated. So does the MMC now have to take a LLMC? A10.2 says it doesn't matter why the leader was eliminated. I guess watching the leader get gunned down with his hands in the air might spook the MMC.

 

[clubby]

I believe you're on the right track here. A10.2 says eliminated (..or any other cause) and there's nothing in either the HoB or No Quarter rules that suggest any revision to that rule.

 

[Justiciar]

The only thing though is that a LLMC is taken as a result of the leader being lost "in the same Location". A10.2
When your OPFOR invoked NO Q on the Surrendering unit, he did so from HIS location "surrendering unit/stack at the instant of ITS CAPTURE and eliminate it..." A20.3

I do not believe a LLMC is in order.

 

[Binchois]

The only thing though is that a LLMC is taken as a result of the leader being lost "in the same Location". A10.2
When your OPFOR invoked NO Q on the Surrendering unit, he did so from HIS location "surrendering unit/stack at the instant of ITS CAPTURE and eliminate it..." A20.3

I do not believe a LLMC is in order.

Good Catch! I think you're right.

 

[jrv]

The only thing though is that a LLMC is taken as a result of the leader being lost "in the same Location". A10.2
When your OPFOR invoked NO Q on the Surrendering unit, he did so from HIS location "surrendering unit/stack at the instant of ITS CAPTURE and eliminate it..." A20.3

I do not believe a LLMC is in order.

It's not specified in the rules where the elimination takes place. Since surrender is refused it sounds as if the elimination takes place in the broken unit's hex. If the elimination takes place in the enemy unit's hex instead, it would have to be specified which enemy unit is eliminating the unit (if there is potentially more than one) because the elimination could still potentially cause a LLMC for a concealed, friendly-to-the-eliminated-leader unit in that location.

JR

 

[Binchois]

It's not specified in the rules where the elimination takes place. Since surrender is refused it sounds as if the elimination takes place in the broken unit's hex. If the elimination takes place in the enemy unit's hex instead, it would have to be specified which enemy unit is eliminating the unit (if there is potentially more than one) because the elimination could still potentially cause a LLMC for a concealed, friendly-to-the-eliminated-leader unit in that location.

JR

I think what Justiciar was saying was not "where does surrender take place?", but that No Quarter actually is declared at the moment of capture:

20.3 NO QUARTER: The captor may opt to reject a RtPh/Disrupted surrendering unit/stack at the instant of its capture and eliminate it instead...
​

This implies that the unit surrenders first and immediately upon capture, the Guard invokes NQ and does him in. The elimination, therefore, appears to be in the Guard's location.

 

[clubby]

It doesn't specify but are we sure that units aren't eliminated after they surrender to the adjacent unit once in that hex? The reading of the rules sounds like that's the order.

 

[Justiciar]

"its capture" means the surrendering unit reached the enemy's hex...thereafter the enemy eliminates it.

The enemy is not KIAing the surrendering unit on the way to it, they do so AFTER it reaches them.

"the instant of its capture" can only be a condition that happens in the enemy hex....No Q happens in that instant they alive and dead in the hands of the enemy.

 

[tipsyweasel]

The only thing though is that a LLMC is taken as a result of the leader being lost "in the same Location". A10.2
When your OPFOR invoked NO Q on the Surrendering unit, he did so from HIS location "surrendering unit/stack at the instant of ITS CAPTURE and eliminate it..." A20.3

I do not believe a LLMC is in order.

I also wondered about that, but wouldn't we need a rule that says that the surrendering unit moves to the captor's location? I get that at the instant of capture, one might imagine that the surrendering unit has moved to the captor's location, but one could also say that it is eliminated instead of being captured. I think the rule is worded that way to prevent a player from declaring No Quarter in a subsequent turn and then basically massacring the prisoners. You need to invoke NQ right away if you want to refuse the surrender.

 

[Justiciar]

No you don't need that positional rule that says the surrendering unit moves to the location, b/c the only way you can be a Prisoner counter i.e. CAPTURED (A20.21) is to have become 'possessed' / 'guarded' by an enemy infantry unit, even if only for what will be an instant. "....will surrender to that enemy unit as ITS prisoner..."

Then 20.3 at that very "instant of its capture (that is being taken as prisoner as per A20.21) and eliminate it instead..."

The death happens in an enemy hex...and at the foot of the card board counter.

[Also note that death by No Q is a subset rule under Prisoners, thus capture (a precondition for being a prisoner if only for an 'instant') is conditional to death by No Q.]

 

[tipsyweasel]

No you don't need that positional rule that says the surrendering unit moves to the location, b/c the only way you can be a Prisoner counter i.e. CAPTURED (A20.21) is to have become 'possessed' / 'guarded' by an enemy infantry unit, even if only for what will be an instant. "....will surrender to that enemy unit as ITS prisoner..."

Then 20.3 at that very "instant of its capture (that is being taken as prisoner as per A20.21) and eliminate it instead..."

The "instead" part opens the possibility that the unit is not actually captured. Instead, it is just eliminated.

I think this was the first time I had ever seen an HoB immediate surrender. Usually there's nobody adjacent and my unit just disrupts. In this case it was a 9-2 and the two elite squads with him both broke from the 2LLMC. Good times.

 

[Eagle4ty]

The "instead" part opens the possibility that the unit is not actually captured. Instead, it is just eliminated.

I think this was the first time I had ever seen an HoB immediate surrender. Usually there's nobody adjacent and my unit just disrupts. In this case it was a 9-2 and the two elite squads with him both broke from the 2LLMC. Good times.

It is how I would play it as the instant of elimination is when the bad nasties gunned down the poor misguided leader upon rising from the ground with the White Badge of Courage fluttering daintily from his fingertips.

 

[Justiciar]

No, that is precluded by the phrase "at the instant of ITS CAPTURE..." that condition (Prisoner..etc noted above) happened just prior to 'instead'.

(Now for the side bar: Just for chit chat. As I a medievalist in documents I work on there is a phrase that comes to mind "on the day he was alive and dead"...well here in ASL it has been parsed to the instant "he was captured and executed." That death happened at the feet of his enemy.)

Your two squads are not broken.

 

[Eagle4ty]

No, that is precluded by the phrase "at the instant of ITS CAPTURE..." that condition (Prisoner..etc noted above) happened just prior to 'instead'.

(Now for the side bar: Just for chit chat. As I a medievalist in documents I work on there is a phrase that comes to mind "on the day he was alive and dead"...well here in ASL it has been parsed to the instant "he was captured and executed." That death happened at the feet of his enemy.)

Your two squads are not broken.

If it were to be otherwise (i.e. the way you propose I think) it would be considered Massacre. In this instance they are refusing Surrender & thus "capture" is a transient state not yet completed as the unit has yet to enter the "guard's" location, nor is the potential guad forced to fire or commit any action that that would result in a POW's demise (e.g. CC, etc.). In otherwise the unit never was nor will be a POW if his surrender is refused.

 

[Justiciar]

Note the wording of A20.3 is not upon the "instant of its surrender" (which could be construed as in the surrendering unit location) but rather "instant of its capture". This words have specific meaning hands on by the enemy...A20.21 'as its prisoner (captor's choice).." Words that mean there is a captee and a captor...thus "instant of its capture" however brief that blink of an eye was placed them in the enemy hex.

 

[Justiciar]

If it were to be otherwise (i.e. the way you propose I think) it would be considered Massacre. In this instance they are refusing Surrender & thus "capture" is a transient state not yet completed as the unit has yet to enter the "guard's" location, nor is the potential guad forced to fire or commit any action that that would result in a POW's demise (e.g. CC, etc.). In otherwise the unit never was nor will be a POW if his surrender is refused.

No. Massacre is an act AFTER the "instant". You have moved past the point of the instant of No Q, way past it. Evidence of this time passage is the fact it [Massacre] has to occur in a " their fire phase."

 

[Justiciar]

.....In this instance they are refusing Surrender & thus "capture" is a transient state not yet completed as the unit has yet to enter the "guard's" location, ....

Incorrect. Look at the very first words of A20.3 "The captor*** may opt to reject..." The captor would not be a captor (some one holding, taking control over some living thing, in control of...that is what qualities a captor possess, physical and mental control*) if it killed / dispatched the thing while not in its possession. Then it would be the 'unit conducting the eliminating, unit conducting the refusal, unit invoking No Q, ....and in what is in another fire phase the massacring unit.

Once again. Elimination of the surrendered* (captive) unit occurs in a brief instant in the CAPTOR's hex.

 

[Mister T]

If surrender involved movement, it would give rise to a slew of additional questions: is the surrendering unit attacked by OBA? By minefields? What happens if wire existed in either/both hexes? I may miss some more. The fact these issues are not addeessed in the RB (nrbh, i may be wrong) seems to indicate that surrender is more a game mechanic that involves no movement.

 

[Justiciar]

If surrender involved movement, it would give rise to a slew of additional questions: is the surrendering unit attacked by OBA? By minefields? What happens if wire existed in either/both hexes? I may miss some more. The fact these issues are not addeessed in the RB (nrbh, i may be wrong) seems to indicate that surrender is more a game mechanic that involves no movement.

My case is not based on movement.

ASL is replete with magic whether the Black Book of Sleaze or the magic physics of ASL. http://www.ths85.net/zekesaslparadise/sleaze.html

Words have meaning even in unidentified changes of state in the game, these do not have to spelled out, why? Because common sense, even in game for which there should be a Supreme Court (ok we have Klas). "Captor" de facto implies a Captee. Otherwise the "captor" is not a captor but an executioner, killer, card board war criminal,...etc.

But at one point it that card board warrior's state (the killer in your view, see post 17 for other better ASL names), and before he faces the Uniform Code of Military Justice or Nuremberg...was a captor*...in possession of a prisoner....the evidence for this patent in the words "A20.3. "The captor..." I can get a conviction on this if you were a police officer (and invoked No Q) as the "captor" any day of the week.

After this point. Words have no meaning...and I can trade "AFV" for "Human Wave Unit" at will.

 

[jrv]

If surrender involved movement, it would give rise to a slew of additional questions: is the surrendering unit attacked by OBA? By minefields? What happens if wire existed in either/both hexes? I may miss some more. The fact these issues are not addeessed in the RB (nrbh, i may be wrong) seems to indicate that surrender is more a game mechanic that involves no movement.

Fortunately mines and OBA are already addressed: A20.21 "Surrendering units are not subject to FFE or minefield attacks." Presumably the prisoners move into the same wire status as the guards. One also assumes that the can cross panjis without effect either.

JR