Is this situation "complex"?
RUN FORREST RUN
- Thread starter Stewart
- Start date
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
On reflection, I think that I sent the wrong question to Perry. In the original post, the routing unit never moves further away from its destination hex whereas, in the question I posed, it does and it already appears to be asked and answered that this isn't allowed. I have sent a revised question as follows:
In the above diagram, the broken unit chooses P7 as its rout destination. Is it permissible for it to ignore the shortest and safe route through Q7 and choose O6 as the start point of its rout path instead when the player (but not the routing unit) is aware that there is a Russian unit in R6 that will prevent it from reaching its original target destination?
In the above diagram, the broken unit chooses P7 as its rout destination. Is it permissible for it to ignore the shortest and safe route through Q7 and choose O6 as the start point of its rout path instead when the player (but not the routing unit) is aware that there is a Russian unit in R6 that will prevent it from reaching its original target destination?
Attachments
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Out of curiosity - where was this asked and answered?
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
It is quoted by jrv in the thread that Stewart resurrected from 2018. It is actually easy to miss.
A10.51 If a DM broken unit that must rout is within six MF of the nearest woods/building, must it attempt to reach the woods/building in a single RtPh?
A. Yes, unless it uses Low Crawl, but it need not take the shortest route (in hexes/MF) to do so. Even if it uses Low Crawl, however, it must still do so toward that woods/building (i.e., at no time may it increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of the phase). [An92; An95w; An96; Mw]
Almost like revisiting old posts have value. Eh Robin? Necro-Officer.
You can still move further away when ROUTING, but NOT when LOW CRAWLING.
Low Crawling Must go towards. About the only way to get there in doing so is ALL OG movement.
SSlunt
Senior Member
Where is the post that was here eariler. Dont remember who it was by. But his use of the English language was right on The Rule to move further is specifically related to LOW Crawl not routing in general.
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
That is not how I read that answer. For your interpretation to be correct, you would have to remove the word “Even” from the start of the second sentence. It also seems clear from the use of the words “at any time” that it is referring to a rout of more than one hex and those words would make no sense in the context of low crawl. There is no way, given this answer, that the the rout suggested in my original question to Perry could be legal. The rout route in your OP however might be as it does not involve moving further away from the target hex until it is no longer a valid destination due to the presence of the enemy unit in R6.
The Towards refers to Low Crawl...otherwise you can low Crawl in ANY Direction claiming its "heading" to its destination.
That's probably why the Towards is included...and Parallel to the destination isn't towards either.
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
"Towards" refers to any rout, even low crawl.
The point is that LC must move towards.
ALL rout must move 'to' the destination.
There is a distinction
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
I quite agree. There is also nothing in the rulebook that says a routing unit cannot move further away from its destination as part of its rout subject to the proviso that, per A10.51, it must reach its destination. The Q&A appears to introduce something that is not spelt out in the rules and I was obviously unaware of it when I sent my original question to Perry. Nevertheless, it is an official Q&A which has appeared in at least three official publications, so I think that we have to regard it as laying down the law unless something has clarified or superseded it subsequently. To me, the words "even", "still", and "at any time" contain a clear implication that the requirement not to to move further away from the target location is not restricted to units using low crawl. If the sentence read:
"If it uses Low Crawl, however, it must do so toward that woods/building (i.e., it may not increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of the phase). [An92; An95w; An96; Mw]"
there would be no doubt that your interpretation is correct. The words that I have removed however seem to change the meaning of the sentence by extending it to routs in general. I don't know if that was the intent but it is what it is.
It does raise interesting issues if the nearest rout destination can only be reached by increasing the hex range to it (eg there might be a water obstacle, cliff, blaze that makes it impossible to reach without moving further way). I am not sure how that situation is supposed to be handled given the terms of the Q&A.
Last edited:
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
Probably doesn't carry any official weight, but whoever drew up the routing flowchart below shares my view that the routing unit cannot increase its distance in hexes from its destination.
http://texas-asl.com/download/Rout+Flowchart+-+Version+5.1.pdf
Path A10.51
The routing unit must move toward its destination Location.
At no point may the routing unit increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination.
The routing unit must end its RtPh closer to its destination hex than it began its RtPh unless--in the
course of routing--it discovers any new KEU(s) that prevent it from doing so.
http://texas-asl.com/download/Rout+Flowchart+-+Version+5.1.pdf
Path A10.51
The routing unit must move toward its destination Location.
At no point may the routing unit increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination.
The routing unit must end its RtPh closer to its destination hex than it began its RtPh unless--in the
course of routing--it discovers any new KEU(s) that prevent it from doing so.
Where does this unit rout to?
There is only one destination in 6MF.
Nothing in 10.51 states increasing distance from the destination...unless my eASLRB is out of date or I've missed something.
Just a note....rat charts are inundated with errata. ANY chart or concept that isn't in the RB, generally is subject to miswording concepts....as we know...this is disastrous in ASL.
Last edited:
SSlunt
Senior Member
This would go against that using low crawl has to move closer as well unless someone is going to say that in this case you can't low crawl
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
Rather than stick that out of topic rant in the middle of a post, you could post a word in the LFT folder with precise points.
They correct the rat pack each time they republish it, so they will be grateful if you can point out their errors.
I presume that you are speaking of the last edition?
Nah...you missed the entire point again.
My "rant" of the rat charts isn't going to do anything to their usefulness.
I have posted BTW, and I can Text Perry, and I can Playtest, etc ad nauseum.
You are aware of the errors...did you contact them?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,636
- Reaction score
- 5,613
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
-
I didn't (I particularily appreciate the "again").
Perhaps should you let the steam go down and try to express yourself in a congenial, or at least, if not able to be kind, a reasonable, way?
LFT reedited the rat pack, each time correcting some errors that the players noticed and reported to them.
They listen to the community and they do a fine job bettering their publications.
I presume that you meant "uselesness" rather than "usefulness" - otherwise, you would be complaining because you cannot make them useless...
The global feedback I have read about the rat charts is that many players use them and prefer them over the official charts, because they are more practical to use.
I don't see what Perry and playtests have to do with the question of the rat charts - the latter are a TPP product.
Perry has always answered the questions I sent to MMP, btw (one must use the appropriate email adress though).
Sometimes, with some delay, but most of the time within days.
And MMP do take players' feedback into account: you will have noticed that reissued scenarios in core modules are often tweaked to make them more balanced or to clarify possible ambiguities.
I don't use the rat charts - because I use the official ones and because I craft my own game aids - but be sure that it I used them and saw an error, I would contact LFT.
I have done it about their Inor pack (on the French forum) and the reaction has been outstanding.
As most players, rather than vent my irritation in a thread about someone in abstentia, I contact the person (or the publisher) directly.
It is much more efficient to change things.
You should try.
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
Not sure why the Rat Pack came up - seeing as the quote in post #114 wasn't from the Rat Pack....or at least it doesn't seem that way to me....
Doug Leslie
Elder Member
I have already noted two posts ago that this kind of situation might occur given the wording of the Q&A. It doesn't seem to me however that it should be difficult to resolve.
The closest destination is GG4. The quickest (and indeed the only legal route) to that destination, given that it is illegal for the routing unit to descend a cliff, is via CC4. The rout path involves traversing five hexes and expending 6 MF. If the routing unit enters C4, it reduces the distance of the rout route by one hex and the the remaining MF factors to 5. While this involves moving "away" from the destination as the crow flies it is actually closer to it in terms of the path that it can legally follow. Moving to C4 therefore meets the general principle that routing units should rout towards their destination and not increase the distance to it while doing so.
With regard to the chart that I linked to, I appreciate that this is not official but it has been around a long time and, if it was incorrect, I would guess that someone would have pointed it out by now. It incorporates the wording of a Q&A that is official and, for the reasons that I have already stated, I genuinely cannot see how that can be interpreted as relating only to low crawl.
Last edited: