surrender as a stack

[Mister T]

if two broken units are inside a hex with an enemy AFV and the AFV would interdict them in ADJACENT hexes in their rout paths, do they have to surrender together (to an ADJACENT enemy infantry unit), knowing that routing is conducted unit-by-unit and the first unit to rout would be spared from interdiction due to target selection limits applicable to the AFV?
Thank you!

 

[Vinnie]

Pretty sure they do.

A20.21 . A stack of broken units in a Location surrenders simultaneously and must be accepted or rejected (20.3) as a stack. If there are not enough

 

[Paul John]

the first unit to rout would be spared from interdiction due to target selection limits applicable to the AFV?

I don't understand this point. If they could be interdicted when routing, then the tank doesn't need to actually fire.
I must be missing something here. I am curious what and hope to learn something new.

 

[PresterJohn]

I think the inference is that A7.212 would limit the AFV to only firing into it's own hex when the first unit routs but A10.53 doesn't reference any target selection limits. The AFV just has to have the rout path in it's covered arc for a weapon with 1 FP as per A10.532.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

A7.212 does affect Interdiction....


A7.212 & A10.53
Can a unit with a CC counter interdict? More specifically, can a unit with an enemy BU AFV in motion in their hex interdict?
A. The CC counter is immaterial, but target selection limits would prevent a unit with an armed Known enemy unit in its Location
from Interdicting.

 

[PresterJohn]

So it would seem that one of the broken units does then get away, while his less fortunate compatriots must suffer the potential interdiction and surrender.

 

[Doug Leslie]

So it would seem that one of the broken units does then get away, while his less fortunate compatriots must suffer the potential interdiction and surrender.

They surrender as a stack, so none of them will get away.

 

[PresterJohn]

They surrender as a stack, so none of them will get away.

But if the first broken unit can't be interdicted as it routs away why does it have to surrender?
Routing is still sequential (one unit at a time) in this case isn't it?

 

[Blaze]

They surrender as a stack, so none of them will get away.

Yes, it is correct that units surrender as a stack. However, at the start of the rout phase in this specific example from the OP, surrender is not possible yet. The only thing that can interdict is the AFV, but currently it has 2 broken units in its location; thus, it cannot select targets outside of its own hex. Since at that time it cannot interdict, the unit's rout one at a time. The first unit leaves that location because it cannot be interdicted as the AFV still has a unit (the other broken unit) in its location. After the first unit completes its rout, the second unit must now surrender as it cannot rout as it would be interdicted by the AFV when leaving the AFV's location since the AFV would be free to interdict as there would now be no enemy units in its location.

I assume the adjacent infantry it surrenders to has no LOS to interdict. Otherwise, this is all moot.

 

[PresterJohn]

They surrender as a stack, so none of them will get away.

And if the AFV doesn't have a weapon covering the rout path (this is not known in the original question) maybe both will get away?
The rout destination has to be the closest location in MF but the actual rout may use more MF to avoid the AFV CA (unless manned 360 deg AAMG).

 

[clubby]

I think it's pretty clear that the afv has a weapon covering the rout path. The OP says the afv would interdict them on their rout path.

 

[PresterJohn]

I think it's pretty clear that the afv has a weapon covering the rout path. The OP says the afv would interdict them on their rout path.

Maybe

 

[Mister T]

To clarify things in this case:
Only the AFV can interdict (the MMC that would receive the surrender is behind the tank and can’t interdict itself. NQ is not in effect.

Then to my reasoning:

1. Yes, surrender is done as a stack
2. But assessing whether brokies surrender is conducted on a unit-by-unit
3. So the first broken unit would be able to rout out of the tank’s hex and the tank would not be able to interdict since target selection limits would apply due to the second broke still in the AFV’s hex
4. Then the second unit would indeed surrender

This is the conjecture I submit here.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I tend to agree with your reading George. It is a close thing however, and I could see it going the other way. Personally, I would allow it. -- jim

 

[clubby]

Maybe

Honestly, exactly what I expected.

 

[MajorDomo]

Worth a "Perry Sez", for those who can travel that pathway better than me?

 

[Blaze]

To clarify things in this case:
Only the AFV can interdict (the MMC that would receive the surrender is behind the tank and can’t interdict itself. NQ is not in effect.

Then to my reasoning:

1. Yes, surrender is done as a stack
2. But assessing whether brokies surrender is conducted on a unit-by-unit
3. So the first broken unit would be able to rout out of the tank’s hex and the tank would not be able to interdict since target selection limits would apply due to the second broke still in the AFV’s hex
4. Then the second unit would indeed surrender

This is the conjecture I submit here.

Yeah that's how I read it. Since units rout one at a time and the AFV is reverse sleaze freezed from interdiction from the remaining broken unit

 

[PresterJohn]

Honestly, exactly what I expected.

Until one actually sees the positions on the board, who knows if there is some cunning escape path? It may be simple and clearly interdicted on all paths.
You however, are absolutely certain.

 

[PresterJohn]

And I do agree that 9 times out of 10 you will be absolutely correct about a rout path. But it's the other 1% that are most interesting.

 

[Paul John]

LOL, math!