A 10.5 and 20.21 rout and capture via RtPh method

[Georgii2222]

So what happens in this situation? The path would be L3, M3, but cannot reach the building in M1. Is he forced to move into M2 and suffer interdiction, or does that cause the surrender, too?

No, because by virtue of the rout path he HAS to take, he's unable to make it to the building, and therefore is not required to rout TO the building.

 

[alanp]

Now that creates a difficulty : a unit may move towards an KEU as long as it does not see it and must adapt as soon as it sees it (or has seen it at a previous part of its RtPh)... but if the Interdiction it could suffer comes from units it does not yet see at the beginning of its RtPh (but will see after having moved a bit, of course), it must take it in consideration from the start of its rout movement...
These rout rules remain something confusing... :crosseye:

The broken unit does not take into consideration KEUs not in its LOS at the beginning of its RtPh for purposes of 'examining the whole rout path for Interdiction', IMHO!
In this case, Robin, the broken unit would rout toward the legal rout target; IF a new KEU comes into LOS, " a new target is determined from that point." [like McFinn just noted] It may be the case that the broken unit ends its RtPh at that point--if in non-OG w/in normal range/ADJACENT to KEU.
I agree that the answer to zgrose's 'Perry sez' isn't as clear as it could be: only KEU in the broken unit's LOS (or those previously in its LOS during this RtPh) are used to 'examine the whole rout path.' The rules as written allow a broken unit to ignore KEUs not in its LOS at the beginning of its RtPh.

 

[zgrose]

>>The broken unit does not take into consideration KEUs not in its LOS at the beginning of its RtPh for purposes of 'examining the whole rout path for Interdiction', IMHO!

I disagree.

A20.21 (from ASLRB v2) says:

Any broken Infantry unit during its RtPh that is both ADJACENT to Known, Good Order, armed enemy Infantry/Cavalry and unable to rout away from it or only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl (regardless of how it actually routs or if the possible Interdictor is Known to it), will surrender to that enemy unit as its prisoner instead....

I read that as all possible (ie on-board) Interdictors for each Location along the rout path.

 

[Brian W]

but if the Interdiction it could suffer comes from units it does not yet see at the beginning of its RtPh (but will see after having moved a bit, of course), it must take it in consideration from the start of its rout movement...

Yes, and it is a strange rule. In fact, even an HIP unit that could interdict from 20 hexes away could cause the unit to surrender if it drops concealment.

 

[zgrose]

It would have to drop HIP while the routing unit was still ADJACENT though, I would think.

Dying sucks. The rout/surrender rules are just cardboard self-preservation. =)

 

[Brian W]

The rules as written allow a broken unit to ignore KEUs not in its LOS at the beginning of its RtPh.

They ignore un-known enemy units for determination of target of rout (ie where the broken unit will rout to once it starts routing), but not for determining if the unit surrenders or not. Strange? Yes; I have hoped that the rule would be changed for over 6 years now. However, MMP has re-affirmed the rule on a number of occasions, although with some modification (for example, I think that the rules as written do not require a concealed unit to lose concealment to cause surrender, but MMP has said that they would have to lose concealment/HIP even if not in LOS of any enemy unit).

I am not sure why MMP won't change this rule. It has absolutly no basis in reality, and worse it is not intuitive. Many people mis-play it, and most people, when they find out they misplay it have a similar reaction to you--because it makes no sense!

 

[alanp]

I hadn't considered section 20 and now agree with Robin that there is a problem of 'esp' and quantum-ASL-mechanics action at a distance.

The rules are very specific, too. A20.21, in part: "(regardless of. . . if the possible Interdictor is Known to it)" So if you wish your opponent's broken unit to surrender to your ADJACENT unit, you must un-HIP/un-'?' your unit at the start of the broken unit's RtPh.

And, yes, Brian, I see the difference you've pointed out between ignoring a unit for rout target purposes vs. not being able to ignore them for Interdiction+surrender purposes. A difference I'm sure I would have seen if it were my opponent who was broken and one I'd miss if I were trying to rout :laugh:

 

[Larry]

In my example, K3 is not a legal path because the unit in J1 is KEU. The first legal rout hex is L3. The leader is now in the brush. He can't reach the building but I read the rules as requiring that he rout towards it expeditiously, which means he would stop in M2 at 5MF.

Is that the right and only path available?
Does interdiction in M2 cause surrender while in K4?

It appears to be the consensus that the answer is "yes" to both.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

So what happens in this situation? The path would be L3, M3, but cannot reach the building in M1. Is he forced to move into M2 and suffer interdiction, or does that cause the surrender, too?

Note that this situation is different in a couple of respects from the original situation: firstly since the J4 unit is CX it does not qualify as an interdictor as per A10.532 v2 (in part) about halfway:

".... Similarly, a CX or Encircled unit, or a unit using Spotted Fire or one in Melee cannot Interdict an enemy unit ..."

And secondly, this situation falls in line with the EXC of A10.51 (near the end):

"....A routing unit may also ignore a building/woods hex if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex ..."

In this case the building in hex M1 is not farther from a known enemy unit in J1 than the DM leader's starting hex in K4 (it's actually closer in fact, 3 hexes vs 4 hexes). Thus, M1 can be ignored, and since there are no other woods/buildings within 6 MF that I can see from the diagram ....

.. So .. in this case the routing unit must abide by rule A10.51 first sentence, second paragraph:

"...If no non-ignorable building/woods Location can be reached during that RtPh, a broken unit may rout to *any terrain hex* consistent with the above restrictions..."

Note, this rule was originally introduced in the Chapter "F" desert section, since desert boards typically have no woods or buildings for rout destinations, but this rule sometimes applies to the regular boards as (in situations like this) well. So, IMO the DM Leader can choose 'any terrain hex' and rout to it 'consistent with the above Limitations' .. Limitations basically meaning 'consistent' with the rest of the rout rules.

Now, in my opinion 'any terrain hex' should even include open ground hexes (as I see open ground Locations as a type of terrain hex: and, in fact, there is even a definition for it in Chapter B section 1). I submitted a long list of QA to MMP a year ago, (like 7/8 pages) and that was one of my questions, obviously though this (routing to an open ground destination)would obviously not be in the routing units' best interest most of the time, except maybe in desert scenarios (since 99% of the time we have desert open ground and thus no good choice of rout destinations most of the time).

Anyway, I say the DM leader is not eliminated for FTR nor must it surrender, and can in fact rout, or low crawl at its option to any 'terrain hex' as long as it's not decreasing range to KEU, ending the RTPh ADJACENT to a KEU ... ('consistent' with all the other rout rules in other words).

 

[Hopalong]

Larry,

In the situation you have illustrated the broken unit can ignore the building in M1 completely as it is no further from the enemy unit in J1 than the current location. It could therefore rout to L3 and stop or continue to M3 and stop or go on to N3. It could rout to L4 if it so wished.

 

[Josh]

Why do routing rules seem so difficult? :argh:

 

[zgrose]

Artificial Intelligence is hard to write. That is what the rout rules are, basically.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

I think they're difficult mainly because they are designed to take control away from the player for the most part. Broken units really have very limited options; the 'rules' control broken units, players are secondary. Hence the 'rules' need to pretty much cover all possible rout situations & need to be most comprehensive in order to effectively do so. The end result is a detailed rout equation that players have to 'grok' through in order to figure out.

On a positive note, the rout rules are used so extensively (virtually every scenario involves broken units) that they're usually very heavily consulted & so learned relatively quickly by determined players (that's been my experience anyway). Rout rules are the only rules in ASL that I can actually quote verbatim from memory (some of 'em anyway) since I've had to debate/consult them so many times in so many games .. just seemed to work out that way. But once you get it you get it, just kind'a clicks (even if the 'lightbulb' takes a long time to turn on ... or burns out several times first).

 

[Josh]

Except in this case I guess

 

[ChrisBuehler]

As a newer player, this has been a great discussion. While I have not been able to contribute, I have certainly learned a lot.

Thanks!
Chris

 

[SamB]

Just FYI - you new players...


Rout, CC and Prisoners all generate LOTS of questions in the compilations of Q&A for ASL.

So read those carefully, and don't feel badly if you end up scratching your head.

Sam "A newbie for decades"

 

[Jim McLeod]

I am not sure why MMP won't change this rule. It has absolutly no basis in reality, and worse it is not intuitive. Many people mis-play it, and most people, when they find out they misplay it have a similar reaction to you--because it makes no sense!

I agree with Brian.

There was a big discussion about this on the ASLML some time ago regarding this rule.

My opinion, this rule so badly sucks as to be unbelievable. Having a unit surrender due to possible interdiction from a unit it is not know to nor has a LOS to the routing unit is just not right.

Rebel! Refuse to play this rule as written. It bites so much it leaves teethmarks in the routing units collective a**es.

:devil:



=Jim=

 

[zgrose]

I'd tend to agree. Broken units ADJACENT to armed, KEU should probably always Surrender regardless of possible Interdiction unless No Quarter or its equivalent is in effect.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I didn't realize that my initial question would lead to this very interesting thread...
At the beginning, as the first answer appeared about three hours after my question was asked, I thought that "everybody" found my hestiation unfounded and that I was asking something really easily solved...
I do appreciate the rout example given in RB v.2, but it is diffi cult to use when one looks for a specific problem (it is very instructive to read wholly, but one cannot do that in the middle of a scenario)...
I don't have time for it, but I often thought about illustrating each point of rule with a small, specific and visual example - or having some of the existing examples with more 'intermediary' illustrations, rather than 30 lines of small print text under an 'at beginning' picture...
I know this is not possible in the paper RB, as it would double or even triple its thickness, but this would be really something to include in an electronical version of it...

 

[Jim McLeod]

I'd tend to agree. Broken units ADJACENT to armed, KEU should probably always Surrender regardless of possible Interdiction unless No Quarter or its equivalent is in effect.

How it should work is this; a broken unit surrenders if it is ADJ. to an armed known enemy unit and is subject to interdiction in the first hex it must rout to.

What makes absolutely no sense (and sorry for the run on sentence) is if a broken unit must surrender due to an enemy unit that is out of the routers LOS at the start of the RtPh and that enemy unit can interdict that broken unit in the fourth hex the broken unit enters and that fourth hex is the first hex that that enemy unit becomes known to the routing unit.

That is plain wrong.


=Jim=