Routing, Low crawl, and destination hex.

[CTKnudsen]

It is the American RtPh. No Quarter and KGP Extremely Heavy Mist are in effect.


EDIT - revised the pic to create a situation that is more accurate to what happened in-game - thanks to Mr. Incredible for pointing out some errors in my original pic that cloud the intent of the post.

Both broken units must or should choose L10 as their destination hex. L11 can ignore J11, J12, K12, and K13 due to the mines. While M10 can (and should) ignore M11, it can't do so with L10, and so declares it as its target. L11 also declares L10 as its target, as noone likes being in a minefield.

In order to avoid overstacking, however, and wanting the 9-2 to stay with the death star, can the American player declare L10 as the destination, and then choose to Low Crawl from N10 into L9 and from L11 into K11?

Rationale is that either unit can Low Crawl - nothing says you can't, so long as you don't do it into water, or to leave an enemy-occupied Location. Both are moving towards the destination hex, or at least they are not moving away from it. A10.51 states that "At the start of its RtPh, a routing unit must designate its destination and must attempt to reach it during that RtPh [EXC: if using Low Crawl].

Is this legal? One might argue that even with Low Crawl, a unit which is capable of reaching its destination must do so. A10.51 also says "a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods hex..." but it could be argued that the exception above supersedes this.

Interested to hear thoughts on this.

 

[Mr Incredible]

Well, L10 is igonorable for M10 as it the same distance to N11, 2 hexes.

But I think it has to go to K12 as that is the next nearest non ignorable woods/building within 6MF. That being the case if it decides to LC it has to LC to L10 as it has to rout towards K12.

As for L11 it has to rout to K10, either LC or normally, so no real advantage.

 

[CTKnudsen]

Unfortunately I had to re-create the situation from memory, and so I didn't apparently get the german positions correct - L10 was not ignorable for either. I'll re-do the original pic, thanks for pointing that out.

I assume, however, that you believe that a unit must move to it's destination with Low Crawl, if it is capable of doing so?

 

[Eagle4ty]

I believe the crux of the rout falls into the statement in A10.51 "..a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods hex (even if overstacked)." If the units were overstacked at the start of its RtPh, if able to reach another valid rout destination with < the same amount of MF to enter the overstacked location it could do so. However, since there is no other valid rout destination that meets that requirement, it must rout to the overstacked location if forced to rout (and it seems as if it must in your depiction).

 

[jrv]

In order to avoid overstacking, however, and wanting the 9-2 to stay with the death star, can the American player declare L10 as the destination, and then choose to Low Crawl from N10 into L9 and from L11 into K11?

It should be, from "M10 into L9", not "N10 into L9".

The answer is, no. Low crawl may be used even if it will prevent the broken unit from reaching its rout target, but the unit must end up *closer* than it started.

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]

In this particular situation the only way to end up closer is to enter the building in L10.

JR

 

[aneil1234]

JR
That q&a answer makes no sense, because i can site MANY examples where a routing unit STAYS the SAME distance (NOT closer and NOT further away) but the SAME to an objective hex
According to that q&A, this practice is illegal
And I even have complete agreement with my opponent in THIS game (Cause Chris is siting a game he watched with myself and another person - Cameron Blackwood SLAKslayer)

I am not just talking in this particular case, But in general terms.
And we say that according to 10.51 staying the SAME distance from an objective woods/building hex is legal.
NO WHERE does it say IT HAS TO BE CLOSER to the objective hex at the end of the phase. Just that the unit may not move in any way which decreases the range in hexes (Which in this case it wasnt) from A KNOWN Enemy unit

Again The RB does NOT reflect this ruling From 1992 ??
We have had multiple times it could be written into the book. And the RULE BOOK should be the primary answer to the rules, NOT a QA.
But where in 10.5 or .51 does it SAY the ACTUAL WORDS MUST MOVE CLOSER to WOODS/ BUILDING, NOT inferred by vague undefined terms or in the sentence "by shortest path in MF".

And BY THE WAY What actually IS "Closer". Does that mean closer in Hexes or closer in Movement points or both
Because that is not answered in this QA to any satisfaction

And then in 10.52, it uses the term "Towards". What does this Mean ? Does it mean Closer in Hexes, closer in MP (which may result in being the same number of hexes away, or even further away depending on cases ?) or again both?

But none of these rules actually say the words "Closer at the end of rout phase"
Only this vague and completely undefined term "Towards"

Here is an example.... A unit with a cliff between it and an objective hex. It elects to low crawl (which it is entitled to do so) to one side or the other and it is still the same distance from the building This unit has not moved closer to an enemy unit, and according to 10.51 it has used the shortest path to the objective. according to this QA, this is now illegal as it is not closer (which in itself is not defined in either the QA or the rule book) ?
And if the cliff was in fact longer you may EVEN have to increase the range in hexes to the objective take the shortest path in movement factors, which both myself and my opponent agree is valid according to 10.51 "Taking the shortest path"


In the end I will add this in both mine and my opponents opinion we both agree 10.51 says IF you low crawl you do not have to reach an objective hex. the exception makes that clear on the top of ppA25. 10.52 says the undefined word "Toward" in 10.52. But again the rules do not stipulate (not vague intent but the actual words) that you have to end the phase closer to an objective. the only stipulation is that during the rout you cannot decrease the range to a known enemy unit!

Further note CAPITALIZATION is being used for emphasis purposes only
I really want to know the answer, cause after 30+ years of playing this, I want this right

And I will add the picture is still not correct
German units are in N11 not O11
and no quarter is not in effect

 

[Russ Isaia]

JR
That q&a answer makes no sense, because i can site MANY examples where a routing unit STAYS the SAME distance (NOT closer and NOT further away) but the SAME to an objective hex
According to that q&A, this practice is illegal
And I even have complete agreement with my opponent in THIS game (Cause Chris is siting a game he watched with myself and another person - Cameron Blackwood SLAKslayer)

I am not just talking in this particular case, But in general terms.
And we say that according to 10.51 staying the SAME distance from an objective woods/building hex is legal.
NO WHERE does it say IT HAS TO BE CLOSER to the objective hex at the end of the phase. Just that the unit may not move in any way which decreases the range in hexes (Which in this case it wasnt) from A KNOWN Enemy unit

Again The RB does NOT reflect this ruling From 1992 ??
We have had multiple times it could be written into the book. And the RULE BOOK should be the primary answer to the rules, NOT a QA.
But where in 10.5 or .51 does it SAY the ACTUAL WORDS MUST MOVE CLOSER to WOODS/ BUILDING, NOT inferred by vague undefined terms or in the sentence "by shortest path in MF".

And BY THE WAY What actually IS "Closer". Does that mean closer in Hexes or closer in Movement points or both
Because that is not answered in this QA to any satisfaction

And then in 10.52, it uses the term "Towards". What does this Mean ? Does it mean Closer in Hexes, closer in MP (which may result in being the same number of hexes away, or even further away depending on cases ?) or again both?

But none of these rules actually say the words "Closer at the end of rout phase"
Only this vague and completely undefined term "Towards"

Here is an example.... A unit with a cliff between it and an objective hex. It elects to low crawl (which it is entitled to do so) to one side or the other and it is still the same distance from the building This unit has not moved closer to an enemy unit, and according to 10.51 it has used the shortest path to the objective. according to this QA, this is now illegal as it is not closer (which in itself is not defined in either the QA or the rule book) ?
And if the cliff was in fact longer you may EVEN have to increase the range in hexes to the objective take the shortest path in movement factors, which both myself and my opponent agree is valid according to 10.51 "Taking the shortest path"


In the end I will add this in both mine and my opponents opinion we both agree 10.51 says IF you low crawl you do not have to reach an objective hex. the exception makes that clear on the top of ppA25. 10.52 says the undefined word "Toward" in 10.52. But again the rules do not stipulate (not vague intent but the actual words) that you have to end the phase closer to an objective. the only stipulation is that during the rout you cannot decrease the range to a known enemy unit!

Further note CAPITALIZATION is being used for emphasis purposes only
I really want to know the answer, cause after 30+ years of playing this, I want this right

And I will add the picture is still not correct
German units are in N11 not O11
and no quarter is not in effect

As you said, Low Crawl grants the routing unit dispensation from achieving the destination, but only that -- "All other Rout provisions apply unchanged to Low Crawl, e.g., rout must still be towards the nearest woods/building Location within 6 MF." A10.52.

And, IMO (and as the Q&A suggests), there is nothing vague about "towards" when used in reference to motion: it means "in the direction of" or "on the way to" the intended destination, not just "no further away from" the intended destination.

"it need not use the shortest route" (A10.51) is a red herring as that is available "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh." Not otherwise. You can't use a longer rout path to end up short of your destination.

[Edit: sadly, I see A10.51 introduces some ambiguity by stating that Low Crawl is an exception from the routing requirement that a routing unit "attempt to reach" the destination. Again IMO, that is flatly wrong. Low Crawl is not an exception from attempting to reach the destination as A10.52 makes clear. It is an exception from reaching the destination (I think, if unreachable by moving one Location but I grant you that is not explicit in the sentence).]

Anyway, my two cents.

 

[jrv]

JR
That q&a answer makes no sense, because i can site MANY examples where a routing unit STAYS the SAME distance (NOT closer and NOT further away) but the SAME to an objective hex
According to that q&A, this practice is illegal
And I even have complete agreement with my opponent in THIS game (Cause Chris is siting a game he watched with myself and another person - Cameron Blackwood SLAKslayer)

Without knowing the details I can't comment on your examples except to say that on the surface it sounds as if those examples were played wrong. There have been many rules that many players play wrong. I myself have played many rules incorrectly (and there are probably still some I play wrong). The fact that you can find other players who play it as you do is neither surprising nor proof that it is correct. The q&a I quoted is an "official" ruling because it appeared in an official AH/MMP publication (in fact three of them).

I am not just talking in this particular case, But in general terms.
And we say that according to 10.51 staying the SAME distance from an objective woods/building hex is legal.
NO WHERE does it say IT HAS TO BE CLOSER to the objective hex at the end of the phase. Just that the unit may not move in any way which decreases the range in hexes (Which in this case it wasnt) from A KNOWN Enemy unit

In fact if you are using regular routing, you *must reach* the rout target in that rout phase [A10.51]. That is the ultimate "moving closer." If you remain the same distance away you have not reached the rout target and have violated A10.51.

Again The RB does NOT reflect this ruling From 1992 ??
We have had multiple times it could be written into the book. And the RULE BOOK should be the primary answer to the rules, NOT a QA.
But where in 10.5 or .51 does it SAY the ACTUAL WORDS MUST MOVE CLOSER to WOODS/ BUILDING, NOT inferred by vague undefined terms or in the sentence "by shortest path in MF".

A10.5 & A10.51 deal with regular routing. Per A10.51, "At the start of its RtPh, a routing unit must designate its destination and must attempt to reach it during that RtPh [EXC: if using Low Crawl]." (Note that there is another exception in that using extra MF for entrenchments/shellholes may prevent the unit from reaching rout target). As I said, you are required to enter the rout target when using regular rout, and that would subsume a requirement to move closer.

And BY THE WAY What actually IS "Closer". Does that mean closer in Hexes or closer in Movement points or both
Because that is not answered in this QA to any satisfaction

And then in 10.52, it uses the term "Towards". What does this Mean ? Does it mean Closer in Hexes, closer in MP (which may result in being the same number of hexes away, or even further away depending on cases ?) or again both?

I agree the q&a does not explain whether "closer" is in hexes or MF, or indeed some other metric. I would guess that it means MF, as that is what is used to select the rout target. Just a guess, however. The important thing about the question raised on this thread is that the routing unit in M10 moves closer *by no metric*. It does not move closer in hexes nor in MF.

But none of these rules actually say the words "Closer at the end of rout phase"
Only this vague and completely undefined term "Towards"

Perhaps that is why the original q&a was requested and answered.

Here is an example.... A unit with a cliff between it and an objective hex. It elects to low crawl (which it is entitled to do so) to one side or the other and it is still the same distance from the building This unit has not moved closer to an enemy unit, and according to 10.51 it has used the shortest path to the objective. according to this QA, this is now illegal as it is not closer (which in itself is not defined in either the QA or the rule book) ?
And if the cliff was in fact longer you may EVEN have to increase the range in hexes to the objective take the shortest path in movement factors, which both myself and my opponent agree is valid according to 10.51 "Taking the shortest path"

In the end I will add this in both mine and my opponents opinion we both agree 10.51 says IF you low crawl you do not have to reach an objective hex. the exception makes that clear on the top of ppA25. 10.52 says the undefined word "Toward" in 10.52. But again the rules do not stipulate (not vague intent but the actual words) that you have to end the phase closer to an objective. the only stipulation is that during the rout you cannot decrease the range to a known enemy unit!

Further note CAPITALIZATION is being used for emphasis purposes only
I really want to know the answer, cause after 30+ years of playing this, I want this right

And I will add the picture is still not correct
German units are in N11 not O11
and no quarter is not in effect

Whether the unit has to move closer in MF or in hexes might be a good submission for a Q&A.

If there is a German unit in N11 the broken unit in M10 may ignore L10 as its rout target.

JR

 

[SLAKslayer]

Im playing aneil1234 in this game. Im mostly just after working out what we should be doing ;-)

With about 4798328 rereadings of those rules 10.5-10.52, and my assumptions about english being that 'towards' means (not further away or same distance), to me it says in a very indirect way and by mashing the words about that you have to follow the shortest path in MF . Im not 100% sold on that. I dont see that it could be hexes because sometimes you might need to go around something (moving further away briefly) to get there along that shortest MF path.

See on further reading im even unsure about what the exception for low crawl does. Does it mean you have to follow the same path as the rest of 10.51 says but you just move 1 hex or does it give you other freedoms. Now the more i read it the more im feeling that that is the case. Auuugh.

#include <rant.h> below so stop reading if you only are here for the rules discussion. (jump to after --edit-- for more on this)

OMG I wish these rules were either living rules or MMP ran a wiki with detailed rule explanations or something (as the comprehensive route example obviously isnt). Either that or they just wrote them in human rather than this legal-ish mess. I need to be able to search it and find what other rules cross over these other ones etc. Wiki!

The rules are what stops me really getting into ASL (much to the detriment of MMP's bank account, if anyone from there is reading). (Plus it seems to me the biggest threats to the game's life are: 1) the rules and 2) not enough people (which living rules might help, even if it did bump piracy a little!) I just wish i knew if i was playing the same game as other people in the world (which i doubt given the rule book). :-(

-- edit --

Ignoring german units etc, just looking at paths and MFs

My new reading seems to indicate that the broken guy in M10 must enter the building in L10 (because you must attempt to, even if you low crawl it's only 1 hex away so there can be no cheaper path)

The unit in L11 im not thinking must take the direct path to L10 too by the same logic and cant go to K11 because the slope between K11/L10 means that is a more expensive MF path (and thus ruled out, even with low crawl)

If we removed the minefield in K12 and there was a broken guy there, previously I would have said he could have low crawled to either L11 or K11 but the new reading seems to indicate he has to take the K11 path (2 to K11, 2.5 to L10) vs (2 to L11, next turn 4 to building)

Augh! I can see both sides of the argument.

 

[Stewart]

Although this is an older post,
CORRECT the image.
That's the first problem.
IF M12 is ACTUALLY in N11, M10 Simply goes to the overstacked location for 3MF.
The other unit doesn't have to rout....
But again...
Correct the image. It's pointless to discuss without the ACTUAL situation.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Maybe the OP didn't expect that someone THREE years later still wanted to discuss it....

 

[Stewart]

It's ASL... We've been discussing the same rules for 30 years. You of all people should realize that.

Not thinking others would ask is simply a lack of foresight.

They never corrected the image back then.
Same issue with people posting any question without a proper image to clarify.

Maybe the admins should lock all threads 1 yr old so we can't comment on them and just reinvent the wheel every 12 months.

Or I could simply recreate this same error ridden image and post the exact same question to boost my comment total.

 

[CTKnudsen]

This was very long ago now, but Neil pointed out above that it was the German unit in O11, not M12, that should be in N11, iirc there were German units in N9, N11, and M12. Pretty sure I had the Amis right.

Corrected enough to visualize? Don't want to steal any of your comment total...

With that in mind, if there is a KEU in N11, that makes L10 ignorable for M10. Fine, no matter, they hightail it somewhere else, their fate no longer a concern for us. L11, however, has no such ability. He can see the German unit next door, and has no other woods/building hex that is closer than 5MF that is a valid destination - can't rout through/into a known minefield, all other woods locations are occupied or adjacent to a KEU.

Regardless, as much as the picture may or may not be correct, the question stands:

Can a unit that is one hex (and less than/equal to 6 MF) from a valid, otherwise enterable designated location use low crawl to a hex adjacent to the destination to avoid actually entering that location (say to avoid overstacking), due to the exception at the end of the 5th sentence of A10.51?

Funnily enough, I never did actually submit a question to Perry about this instance, but maybe someone should.

 

[Stewart]

L11 has no LOS to any enemy unit other than M12.
Since he can ignore the mines area as a destination...L10 would be his destination 5MF IF he causes it to be overstacked...

If L11 Routs first, M10 can rout to L10 (4MF), but can ignore since its no further from N11 and then can just designate pretty much ANY other hex as its destination. L9 would be one such hex. and could LC there and not surrender as L10 is a potential rout destination.

IF M10 Routs First into L10, L11 can choose to ignore L10 as it's the same MF as I12 and H11 ( 6MF ) to enter now.
and can rout to I12 H11.
Easier when you can see the map...Not difficult at all to do.
FLAME counters are the MINEFIELDS to show the terrain beneath.

 

[CTKnudsen]

Sure, and good catch on the overstacking penalties influencing L11's rout if M10 routs into L10 first!

However, that doesn't answer my original question about low crawling into K11 or L9. FWIW I agree with you that the meaning of "toward" would in this case mean that they would generally have to enter L10 (unless as you point out M10 routed first), but still.

See Neil's arguments above - does "toward" mean closing distance in hexes, or reducing MF required to get there? Can you be moving toward a hex if you neither increase nor decrease the hex distance? After all, a rout from L11 to L10 through K11 is using a perfectly valid rout path, and Neil correctly argues that if the metric of "toward" is MF, then his low crawl into K11 definitely reduces the amount of MF now required to get into L10 in a subsequent movement or rout phase. If it's hexes and not MF, does the exception to attempting to reach a destination hex while low crawling in A10.51, remove any requirement to reach the destination hex, even if it would be possible to get there using low crawl?

It's subtle, and probably a bit non-sensical, but it's worth wondering about.