Rout questions

geezer

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
142
Reaction score
4
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
A squad and a broken leader are in the same location.The leader is eliminated for failure to rout.

A) Does squad have to take a LLMC after leader elimination?

B) If squad fails LLMC, is he eliminated for failure to rout as well?

Thanks
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
A squad and a broken leader are in the same location.The leader is eliminated for failure to rout.

A) Does squad have to take a LLMC after leader elimination?

B) If squad fails LLMC, is he eliminated for failure to rout as well?
I would think so. A broken unit that fails a MC is Casualty Reduced.

JR
 

EagleIV

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
843
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Generally I would agree with JR, however depending on the morale of the units the squad may not have to take the LLMC, and while I can't come up with the details right now it might be possible for the leader to be eliminated for failure to rout while the squad could rout.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
If a leader was forced to be eliminated for FTR while in the initial rout location, I can't envision a circumstance that a broken unit starting in the same location wouldn't also be eliminated for FTR as well unless the loss of the leader was to invoke NQ due to surrender refusal (then actually not eliminated for FTR). If that were the case, then circumstances would dictate if the surviving MMC was eligible to Low Crawl or also be eliminated for FTR. Also, the broken MMC may or may not have to take a LLMC dependent upon the morale values involved.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
This leader LLTC also applies when leaders surrender.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
If a leader was forced to be eliminated for FTR while in the initial rout location, I can't envision a circumstance that a broken unit starting in the same location wouldn't also be eliminated for FTR as well...
The broken leader could be in a Open Ground hex in LOS and Normal Range of an enemy unit, and thusly forced to rout - the other broken units could e.g., be beneath a foxhole in the same Open Ground hex and thusly not forced to rout.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
It’s the answer I got from a recent tournament from 4 ‘experts’. Seems to me if a leader runs off and surrenders it might have an effect on moral.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
If a leader was forced to be eliminated for FTR while in the initial rout location, I can't envision a circumstance that a broken unit starting in the same location wouldn't also be eliminated for FTR as well
If the leader routed first and routed into a HIP (or concealed) unit, its RtPh would end and it would be eliminated for being ADJ to a (now) KEU.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It’s the answer I got from a recent tournament from 4 ‘experts’. Seems to me if a leader runs off and surrenders it might have an effect on moral.
"eliminated" is not formally defined AFAIK. My impression is that eliminated and captured are different in the rules. The CVP rules treat "eliminated" and "captured" in two separate rules, for instance (A26.221 & A26.222). Also it would be hard to consider captured equipment as "eliminated," as it could still kill you. And if a prisoner suffered a KIA result, would nothing happen because it was already been "eliminated"? My believe is that when the ASLRB speaks about something being eliminated, it is not also referring to captured. Of course there might be a rule where it is meant to include both; I'd be interested to see one.

As for whether it might have an effect on morale, you are probably right but I think the rules fail to capture that.

JR
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
It’s the answer I got from a recent tournament from 4 ‘experts’. Seems to me if a leader runs off and surrenders it might have an effect on moral.
There are lots of events that might effect "morale", your squad watches a friendly tank turning into a blazing wreck as the turret lands 50 meters away from them...your MMG goes tits up and the Japanese are yelling Banzai! from two hexes away, and so on. Furthermore, the leader that just surrendered could have been a terrible 90 day wonder, and you actually are glad he surrendered b/c command now falls to your veteran sergeant whom you would follow anywhere...

Surrender is not elimination... because ASL has no Lazarus rule that when the leader escapes from being a prisoner, he is suddenly then deemed un-eliminated, and you can have your LLMC back.

You can look at A26.22 CVP and see that elimination and surrender are two different classes of things otherwise they would not be separated by the "and/or" symbol there in and given different values thereafter.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
There are lots of events that might effect "morale", your squad watches a friendly tank turning into a blazing wreck as the turret lands 50 meters away from them...your MMG goes tits up and the Japanese are yelling Banzai! from two hexes away, and so on. Furthermore, the leader that just surrendered could have been a terrible 90 day wonder, and you actually are glad he surrendered b/c command now falls to your veteran sergeant whom you would follow anywhere...

Surrender is not elimination... because ASL has no Lazarus rule that when the leader escapes from being a prisoner, he is suddenly then deemed un-eliminated, and you can have your LLMC back.

You can look at A26.22 CVP and see that elimination and surrender are two different classes of things otherwise they would not be separated by the "and/or" symbol there in and given different values thereafter.
They are eliminated if surrender is not accepted.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
The elimination happens in the enemy's location not in the hex the 'surrendering' unit moved from during the RtPh..

A20.3 "The captor may opt to reject a RtPh/Disprupted surrendering unit/stack at the instant of its capture and eliminate it instead." The bold indicates that the action of elimination is taking place in the enemy's location. So if the leader surrenders, it will not be in the MMC location to cause a LLMC...and if a broken leader and a broken squad are a stack they surrender and die as a stack (A20.3).
Actually - per Q&A - it has been ruled that any unit that is eliminated due to surrender refusal is considered eliminated in its current Location.

A10.2, A20.21, & A20.3
An enemy squad of lower morale than its accompanying Leader are in a Location ADJACENT to a Good Order known friendly
infantry unit. The enemy Leader is broken and must Surrender to the ADJACENT Good Order known friendly unit which does
now declare No Quarter. Is the broken enemy Leader a) eliminated in its current Location—thus causing a LLMC on the
accompanying enemy squad
or b) eliminated in the Location of the friendly unit that declared No Quarter?
A. a).
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Actually - per Q&A - it has been ruled that any unit that is eliminated due to surrender refusal is considered eliminated in its current Location.

A10.2, A20.21, & A20.3
An enemy squad of lower morale than its accompanying Leader are in a Location ADJACENT to a Good Order known friendly
infantry unit. The enemy Leader is broken and must Surrender to the ADJACENT Good Order known friendly unit which does
now declare No Quarter. Is the broken enemy Leader a) eliminated in its current Location—thus causing a LLMC on the
accompanying enemy squad
or b) eliminated in the Location of the friendly unit that declared No Quarter?
A. a).
You need to change what the rulebook says then with some errata at A20.3 b/c that is not what it says presently.
The Q and A makes a whole special subset of rule/s as well just for a surrendering SMC and those knock on side effects...
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,777
Reaction score
7,201
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
You need to change what the rulebook says then with some errata at A20.3 b/c that is not what it says presently.
I am not sure the rule needs to be changed (it could certainly be clearer [as a lot of things in section A20]) - but I think "instant of its capture" can be interpreted the way the Q&A goes, ymmv.

Here is the old thread that lead to the Q&A, btw:
 
Last edited:

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
You need to change what the rulebook says then with some errata at A20.3 b/c that is not what it says presently.
The Q and A makes a whole special subset of rule/s as well just for a surrendering SMC and those knock on side effects...
Good to know I argued the same way then as I do now...I think the language as it stands in the ASLRB now is incompatible with the answer to the Q and A. Though I have to accept the answer as how to play. "Instant of its capture" means the surrendering party was in a different place than a moment ago. If it had just said "...surrendering unit/stack and eliminate it..." Then I can see how the answer to the question makes senses and was needed.

In any case what I think does not matter...except that A20.3 could use better language now to match the Q/A reference.
 
Last edited:
Top