Massacre via A20.4

[Stewart]

20.4 MASSACRE: 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.

It doesn't state the unit must be a prisoner.

I understand this to mean they do not need to be in possession(guarding) the unarmed unit.
i.e. end of the Mph... Adv Fire phase comes around...MASSACRES unarmed unit it doesn't possess.

Correct or incorrect

 

[Doug Leslie]

20.4 MASSACRE: 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.

It doesn't state the unit must be a prisoner.

I understand this to mean they do not need to be in possession(guarding) the unarmed unit.
i.e. end of the Mph... Adv Fire phase comes around...MASSACRES unarmed unit it doesn't possess.

Correct or incorrect

How did they come to be in the same location? If they enter during the MPh, they have to attempt to capture/eliminate the unarmed unit by CC (A20.54). If they don’t succeed, they are immediately considered to be in melee and cannot attack in the AFPh.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

How did they come to be in the same location? If they enter during the MPh, they have to attempt to capture/eliminate the unarmed unit by CC (A20.54). If they don’t succeed, they are immediately considered to be in melee and cannot attack in the AFPh.

I don't see in A20.54 that attacking unarmed unit(s) in CC who's Location you enter during the MPh is not mandatory.
"Unarmed units are not an obstacle to movement, and can be recaptured normally by CC or by any Infantry/Cavalry unit entering their Location and engaging in an immediate CC attack during the MPh. "

It just says "can be" - unless I am missing something?


That being said, I have a suspicion that when A20.4 says "unarmed" it should have said "prisoner". I can't really see a reason why a Russian 4-4-7 could automatically eliminated a "German" (1)-0-6, while a German 4-6-7 would actually have to make a fire attack vs a "Russian" (1)-0-6 - does make sense to me personally. YMMV.

The rule does say "unarmed" - but I think it should say "prisoner".

 

[Doug Leslie]

I don't see in A20.54 that attacking unarmed unit(s) in CC who's Location you enter during the MPh is not mandatory.
"Unarmed units are not an obstacle to movement, and can be recaptured normally by CC or by any Infantry/Cavalry unit entering their Location and engaging in an immediate CC attack during the MPh. "

It just says "can be" - unless I am missing something?


That being said, I have a suspicion that when A20.4 says "unarmed" it should have said "prisoner". I can't really see a reason why a Russian 4-4-7 could automatically eliminated a "German" (1)-0-6, while a German 4-6-7 would actually have to make a fire attack vs a "Russian" (1)-0-6 - does make sense to me personally. YMMV.

The rule does say "unarmed" - but I think it should say "prisoner".

A20.54 doesn't say that they have to attack in CC but, if they don't, my reading of the rule is that they still have to go into melee.

Unarmed units are not an obstacle to movement, and can be recaptured normally by CC or by any Infantry/Cavalry unit entering their Location and engaging in an immediate CC attack during the MPh. If they fail to eliminate or recapture those unarmed units during the MPh, they are considered in Melee thereafter and may move no farther.

If they are going to end up in melee, there seems to be little benefit in not attempting to capture/eliminate the unarmed unit during their MPh.

 

[zgrose]

I believe the implication is something like the following:
If [they opt to engage in an immediate CC attack and] fail to eliminate or recapture those unarmed units during the MPh, they are considered in Melee thereafter and may move no farther.

The "... and may move no farther." clause is the basis for this opinion.

 

[Doug Leslie]

I believe the implication is something like the following:
If [they opt to engage in an immediate CC attack and] fail to eliminate or recapture those unarmed units during the MPh, they are considered in Melee thereafter and may move no farther.

The "... and may move no farther." clause is the basis for this opinion.

If they engaged in CC and captured/eliminated the unarned unit, they could continue their movement. What the rule appears to be saying is that they can't leave the hex until the unarmed unit is dealt with.

 

[zgrose]

What the rule appears to be saying is that they can't leave the hex until the unarmed unit is dealt with.

I don't agree because that would make the Unarmed unit an obstacle to movement.

 

[Robert Fabbro]

I read it as an infantry/cavalry unit has a choice upon entering an unarmed unit's location:

A) since the unarmed unit is not an obstacle to movement, the infantry/cavalry can ignore them and simply keep moving, or

B) If they so choose they may instead try to eliminate/recapture the unarmed units but failure results in placement of the Melee counter.

 

[Robert Fabbro]

....What I am less sure about is what happens if the infantry/cavalry simply choose to stop in the same hex as the unarmed unit.

 

[Doug Leslie]

....What I am less sure about is what happens if the infantry/cavalry simply choose to stop in the same hex as the unarmed unit.

They will have failed to eliminate or recapture the unarmed unit during the MPh and will enter melee with it.

 

[Larry]

Massacre only applies to an unarmed unit not in the act of escape. An unarmed unit that is not held prisoner is in the act of escape. It is "escaping." The last sentence of A20.55 states that Italians, Japanese, and Axis Minors will not attempt escape unless abandoned. Being unpossessed permits the act of escape.

A unit may massacre a prisoner not in the act of escape possessed by it or another guard. A unit may not massacre an unarmed unit in the act of escape whether getting or having gotten away from the guard. Klas thinks that the unarmed unit means prisoner. The phrase not in the act of escape enforces that construction and understanding of the rule.

Stew's construction is both correct in some circumstances and incorrect in others for the nationalities and status listed.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

A20.54 doesn't say that they have to attack in CC but, if they don't, my reading of the rule is that they still have to go into melee.

As others have written as well - my reading is that that only happens if the actually try a CC attack - not otherwise.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

....What I am less sure about is what happens if the infantry/cavalry simply choose to stop in the same hex as the unarmed unit.

I don't think anything special happens....

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Massacre only applies to an unarmed unit not in the act of escape. An unarmed unit that is not held prisoner is in the act of escape.

I am not sure about that - I think only prisoners can "escape". Unarmed units (abandoned or escaped prisoners) can't "escape" - they are already "free".

 

[BattleSchool]

Assume an ATTACKER enters and remains in the same Location as an unarmed enemy unit, but doesn't attempt to capture or eliminate it during the MPh. During the CCPh, the ATTACKER declines to make a CC attack. May the unarmed unit initiate CC, possibly locking the armed unit in Melee? Are unarmed units ever permitted to initiate CC?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

May the unarmed unit initiate CC, possibly locking the armed unit in Melee?

I think they may, and even if they don't attack, I think a Melee is formed anyway...

A11.15:
"If Infantry of both sides remain in the same Location after all initial CC attacks have been resolved at the end of a CCPh, they [EXC: bicyclists, skiers] are considered to be locked in Melee..."

 

[BattleSchool]

I think they may, and even if they don't attack, I think a Melee is formed anyway...

A11.15:
"If Infantry of both sides remain in the same Location after all initial CC attacks have been resolved at the end of a CCPh, they [EXC: bicyclists, skiers] are considered to be locked in Melee..."

Interesting. Although the unarmed unit normally wouldn't impose target selection limits, including during the ATTACKER's AFPh, an unarmed unit effectively does at the end of the CCPh by locking the ATTACKER in Melee.

A7.212 TARGET SELECTION LIMITS:

A unit does not have the freedom to attack units in other Locations while its own Location is occupied by a Known enemy unit (even if disrupted) unless the only known enemy unit in its Location is an unarmed, unarmored vehicle.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Interesting. Although the unarmed unit normally wouldn't impose target selection limits, including during the ATTACKER's AFPh, an unarmed unit effectively does at the end of the CCPh by locking the ATTACKER in Melee.

I think it does impose target selection limits since it isn't an "unarmed, unamored vehicle."

 

[BattleSchool]

I think it does impose target selection limits since it isn't an "unarmed, unamored vehicle."

Correct. I skimmed A7.212 a moment ago, seeing "or" where there was none.

 

[Stewart]

I think it does impose target selection limits since it isn't an "unarmed, unamored vehicle."

I'm not so sure.
Unarmed units pretty much are non-combatants. You can even ROUT towards them...and quite possibly THROUGH them.
Def FirstFire doesn't impose fire restrictions either.

For game purposes, they are civilians. and can pretty much be ignored.

I was curious about a potential ADV fire phase action whereas qualifying units can simply just say "bye-bye" to the prisoners via massacre. No Melee attack, just blast them and clearing the board of clutter.