Prisioners in CC/Melee

[Scott_Blanton]

This happended last night and my buddy and I were a bit confused with the rules. Can someone explain some of the options for this situation:

German 548 guarding a prisioner squad and leader. Italian 336 advances into the hex. No ambush.

Rules say that since it is CC, prisioners may attack if they pass a NTC. They decide not to attack. Germans would be a 1-2 since they are guarding, Italians would be at 1-2 vs the German 548. German loses a half squad. So far, is this correct?

Next turn we have the German 238 guarding the squad and leader prisioner. Since melee exists, a NTC is not required. If the prisioners decided not to attack it would be 1-4 for the German and 3-2 for the Italian. Correct?

1. What is the procedure if the prisioners attack?
2. Is the 238 sill considered guarding when he attacks back? Even vs the 336?
3. Can the prisioners combine attacks with the 336 squad?
4. If the prisioners attack and eliminate the 238, only a half squad is re-armed and the other half squad stays unarmed. Correct?
5. If they do not attack, they must scrounge during MPH to get re-armed. Is the leader automatically rearmed when the german is eliminated?

Thanks!
Scott

 

[Ole Boe]

German 548 guarding a prisioner squad and leader. Italian 336 advances into the hex. No ambush.

Rules say that since it is CC, prisioners may attack if they pass a NTC.

No, that's not what the rules say. A20.55 says: "Unless a Melee exists in the Location, prisoners must pass a NTC before they can attack their Guard. This attack can only occur during the CCPh and only if the Guard is broken."
In your situation, the Guard is not broken, and there is not yet Melee, so the Prisoners can do nothing yet.

They decide not to attack. Germans would be a 1-2 since they are guarding, Italians would be at 1-2 vs the German 548. German loses a half squad. So far, is this correct?

This seems correct.

Next turn we have the German 238 guarding the squad and leader prisioner. Since melee exists, a NTC is not required. If the prisioners decided not to attack it would be 1-4 for the German and 3-2 for the Italian. Correct?

I think so.

1. What is the procedure if the prisioners attack?

You declare its attack before any CC units are grouped for their attack. The Prisoner then makes it attack before the other attacks are made.

2. Is the 238 sill considered guarding when he attacks back? Even vs the 336?

Yes.

3. Can the prisioners combine attacks with the 336 squad?

I think so, since there is no exception for this.

4. If the prisioners attack and eliminate the 238, only a half squad is re-armed and the other half squad stays unarmed. Correct?

Correct.

5. If they do not attack, they must scrounge during MPH to get re-armed.

They do get remarmed when their Guard is elimiated even if they don't attack, since there are no other enemy units in the Location. That's what the paranthesis in A20.551 means: "(or by any other means if no other enemy unit is currently in the same Location)".

Is the leader automatically rearmed when the german is eliminated?

Yes, first sentence of A20.551: "Escaped SMC are always Armed".

 

[Scott_Blanton]

In your situation, the Guard is not broken, and there is not yet Melee, so the Prisoners can do nothing yet.

I did see that, just forgot to mention that.

You declare its attack before any CC units are grouped for their attack. The Prisoner then makes it attack before the other attacks are made.

So, if they have to declare their attacks first, it would seem that they can not combine their attacks with another unit. This is what is leading to some of my confusion.


So if the prisioners attack before the 336 squad it would attack at 1-1 vs the 238. The 336 could attack at 3-2. The options for the German 238 would be 1-2 vs the prisioners, 1-4 vs the 336 squad, or 1-6 vs the combined units (his 2 FP is 1/2 vs each option since he is still guarding). Does this seem correct?

Thanks!
Scott

 

[Larry]

A20.55

Prisoner CC attacks are sequential in that the prisoners may make all of their CC attacks before they can be attacked in turn by the survivors and any other enemy units in that Location.

A11.33

11.33 PRISONERS: Prisoners attempting to eliminate their captor may resolve all oftheir CC attacks first (20.55).

and A11.12

Units may attack any unit or combination of units in the same Location [EXC: SMC; 11.14], so long as no unit attacks or is attacked [EXC: Infantry OVR (4.152) or CC vs/by a vehicle] more than once per CCPh. All units in the hex do not have to be attacked, nor do all units have to make an attack. See also 11.19.

So it would appear that the prisoners may combine in an attack against a guard with other friendly units.

 

[Ole Boe]

You found the same rule quotes as I looked at Larry, and I generally agree with you, however there is one problem here, as I see it.

Unlike other forms for sequential CC, the Prisoner CC is special, in only granting the Prisoner the right to attack before enemy units. It doesn't grant all friendly units the right to attack before all enemy units as when Ambush occurs.

So when they attack together, the question is whether the Prisoner grants the friendly unit the ability of attacking first, or whether the Prisoner looses its first-attack ability. Its not directly covered, but my guess would be the latter, that the Prisoner must make a normal, non-sequential attack when attacking with other units.

This is not a DRM, so A.5 doesn't apply directly, but in the lack of other rules, I choose to apply its spirit: "if a modifier applies to some, but not all, of the attacking units, it applies to the attack only if detrimental to the attacker. This often advocates the breaking up of a FG into separate attacks—not all of which are so penalized."

 

[Larry]

I agree with Ole that the rules do not explicitly address the situation. However, having some units qualify for a sequential attack brings others along with it. For instance, a concealed unit gives -2 on the ambush roll. If that -2 drm qualifies the CC for ambush, even non-concealed units participating get to make the sequential attack first. One unit CX and/or lax adverserly affects other non-CX/Lax units as well, forcing them all to get ambushed in some circumstances.

Since some units qualifying for a sequential attack permit other units to get to attack sequentially in other circumstances, it would seem consistent that the presence of a prisoner in a melee location would have the same impact on CC in that phase.

Again, COWTRA doesn't help because of a lack of explicit consideration of that situation by the rules. Any Perry Sez on the subject?

 

[Corporal Kindel]

There was a thread on this exact same topic some time back, here is the link:

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24301

 

[Ole Boe]

I didn't know about the other thread, but it didn't really conclude, so we might as well continue here.

I agree with Ole that the rules do not explicitly address the situation. However, having some units qualify for a sequential attack brings others along with it. For instance, a concealed unit gives -2 on the ambush roll. If that -2 drm qualifies the CC for ambush, even non-concealed units participating get to make the sequential attack first.

But that's because A11.4 explicitely tells us that a drm applies "even if only a portion of a player's CC force is qualified to use it". Note that without this specific rule, A.5 would apply, telling us that only detrimental drm apply unless all units of a side qualify.

One unit CX and/or lax adverserly affects other non-CX/Lax units as well, forcing them all to get ambushed in some circumstances.

Yes, because A11.4 tells us so.

A more similar example (IMHO), is if you attack in HtH with one Pinned Japanese and one unpinned. The unpinned one qualifies for the -1 CC DRM, but the two together do not receive it due to A.5.

Since some units qualifying for a sequential attack permit other units to get to attack sequentially in other circumstances, it would seem consistent that the presence of a prisoner in a melee location would have the same impact on CC in that phase.

But the rules are written differently. During Ambush, a side ambushes the other - so all units of that side gets to attack before the oher, regardless of status.

However A11.33 only says that Prisoners get to attack first - not the side that the Prisoners belong to.

 

[Larry]

Convincing ... as is typical. Nicely constructed Ole.

 

[Ole Boe]

Thanks

This rule really a clarification though, and I would not have much problem with a Perry sez giving the opposite answer.

Anyway, I'm supposed to lead a rewrite of A20 now that the new Impulse Movement rules are in MMP's hands - it's just that I haven't made myself to start it yet, as it seems like a daunting task.

A20 is a chapter that really needs a rewrite though - just don't tell Ron Mosher

 

[Ole Boe]

Hi, a question was overlooked:

So, if they have to declare their attacks first, it would seem that they can not combine their attacks with another unit. This is what is leading to some of my confusion.

No, what I meant, is that the Prisoner must declare its escape attempt - i.e. its intention of attacking its Guard, and making the NTC if necessary - before any attacks are declared.

So if the prisioners attack before the 336 squad it would attack at 1-1 vs the 238.

This seems correct, since there are two prisoners (a squad and a leader) with 1 FP each. Note that the prisoner leader gets to use his leadership factor, so if it is a 9-2, the Guard may have a problem.

The 336 could attack at 3-2. The options for the German 238 would be 1-2 vs the prisioners, 1-4 vs the 336 squad, or 1-6 vs the combined units (his 2 FP is 1/2 vs each option since he is still guarding).

The Guard's FP is not halved when attacking prisoners, so it would be 1-1 vs them. The other options are correct though.

 

[Scott_Blanton]

Note that the prisoner leader gets to use his leadership factor, so if it is a 9-2, the Guard may have a problem.

The Guard's FP is not halved when attacking prisoners, so it would be 1-1 vs them. The other options are correct though.

I do not have a RB with me here at work, but can you share the rules that allow the 2 items above? I thought the leader would lose his mod while a prisioner and gain it back when he escapes. Why would the guard not be considered a guard when attacking the prisioners? (1/2 FP)

Thanks for all your help with this!

Scott

 

[Ole Boe]

Scott:

A20.5 (about an unarmed Prisoner SMC): "An unarmed SMC must be noted on a side record, but maintains its normal morale and leadership levels."

A20.52: "A Guard's FP is halved for attack (but not defense) purposes when attacking non-prisoners in CC."

Hope this helps.

 

[Scott_Blanton]

That is perfect!! Thanks for all the help! I have a much better understanding of this section. Now I just need to learn how to keep these Italian squads from becoming prisioners.

 

[Larry]

To resurrect what was a dead horse:

ASOP 8.14B: Check for Sequential CC if vehicles(s)/Ambush/Prisoner(s) involved (A11.3); ...

Since the ASOP says involved, that changes the analysis of what Ole previously argued as a clarification.

I went back to check the ASOP in light of the IF discussion. Because of the importance of the ASOP in resolving that question, seems appropriate here. :smoke:

 

[Ole Boe]

Since the ASOP says involved, that changes the analysis of what Ole previously argued as a clarification.

I went back to check the ASOP in light of the IF discussion. Because of the importance of the ASOP in resolving that question, seems appropriate here. :smoke:

A valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion (which may either mean that my previous analysis was correct, or that I'm damned stubborn )

The ASOP step in question says: "Check for Sequential CC if..." not "Resolve as Sequential CC if...". So I see it saying that we must check to see if there is a Sequential CC is prisoners are involved, with a "Yes" answer if the Prisoner attacks alone, and a "No" answer if he attacks in combination with non-prisoners.

I'm not saying that the answer to this question is clear though. I know that MMP wants A20 to be rewritten for clarity, and it is rule questions like this that should be adressed...