another Rout question

[Michael R]

The broken squad in L7 must rout (DM removed for simplicity) because it is adjacent to a KEU. Can it low crawl to K8 instead of routing to K7? Assume no LOS from M7 to K8.

TIA

 

[buser333]

View attachment 18330

The broken squad in L7 must rout (DM removed for simplicity) because it is adjacent to a KEU. Can it low crawl to K8 instead of routing to K7? Assume no LOS from M7 to K8.

TIA

K7 looks to be its nearest non-ignorable rout destination so I would say no.

 

[Philippe D.]

A10.52 forbids the use of Low Crawl in streams Let's say it's a Gully instead.

If there is no missing unit that would allow disregarding K7 as a rout destination, then they will have to pick it, so any Low Crawl would have ot be to K7 I believe.

 

[Sparafucil3]

The broken squad in L7 must rout (DM removed for simplicity) because it is adjacent to a KEU. Can it low crawl to K8 instead of routing to K7? Assume no LOS from M7 to K8.

TIA

This is a tricky one. K7 is non-Ignorable. Second paragraph of A10.51 says "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 and need not rout toward the nearest woods/building Location." The first paragraph of A10.51 says (in part) "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route, but as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise, it may enter a shellhole/entrenchment/pillbox to avoid Interdiction even if it can no longer reach that woods/building hex in a single RtPh. A routing unit can rout into/out of/within a known minefield or FFE at its option, but is not forced to do so merely to reach the closest woods/building hex. 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] ."

So this is where it becomes tricky. The shortest path to K7 is to simply move into K7. You aren't using the shortest path so it would seem to say "NA" but then there is that Exception. IMO, the Exception gives you an out and makes this legal. IMO, you should be required to "move closer" (e.g. decrease the distance) to the Rout Destination but the rule doesn't clearly spell this out. I admit to being a little uncertain about this but I would allow it. -- jim

EDIT to add: Assume a Gully and not a Stream. -- jim

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There is A10.52 that says:
"All other Rout provisions apply unchanged to Low Crawl, e.g., rout must still be towards the nearest woods/building Location within 6 MF."

But, granted "towards" could be a bit ambiguous.

 

[Mister T]

But, granted "towards" could be a bit ambiguous.

That's why a clarification in the form of a Q&A would be good. Right now i see no clear-cut answer.

 

[MajorDomo]

I think that the rout objective hex is 1 hex away, low crawl must be to that hex.

I think the low crawl exception is an exception to:

As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh


Treating the exception as an exception to the entire paragraph would allow low crawl in any direction..

It would be clearer if the low crawl exception were moved up in the paragraph, so enter Perry Sez.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I think @klasmalmstrom has it right, the unit must Low Crawl "towards" K7, so must go to K7.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I think @klasmalmstrom has it right, the unit must Low Crawl "towards" K7, so must go to K7.

The problem is the rules don't define "towards". They rules also say "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]". While I tend to agree with Klas (I rarely disagree in fact), IMO, the rules don't clarify what "towards" means. While we could all probably agree among us that "towards" means "reduce the distance in Hexes", there is no guarantee that another reasonable person could come along and argue "towards" just means "reduce the MF's needed to reach the destination" and he would be just as based in the rules as we are. While I personally would rout to K7--and I believe that's the intent of the rule--I would not force my opponent to do so. I would not allow them to rout further, but until "towards" is more clearly defined, I don't claim to be certain about the rule here. JMO. YMMV. -- jim

 

[Doug Leslie]

I don't see the problem here. If the broken unit low crawls to K8, it is exactly the same distance from K7 as it was before whether you measure it in hexes or MF. How could that constitute moving towards it?

 

[Philippe D.]

I can think of at least three different definitions of "towards":
1/ using a route that takes at most 6 MF to reach it
2/ so that the final position is closer to the target (in MF)
3/ so that the final position is closer to the target (in hexes)
4/ using the shortest possible path (in MF) (not that this is explicitly not how you decide a normal rout path)

In the course of a normal (non-Low Crawl) rout, it doesn't matter too much, because the rule forces you to reach your target if at all possible (it does matter though, because depending on your path, you may be able to discover previously unknown enemy units that force you to reconsider your destination; and sometimes, that's just what the routing player wants).

But in a Low Crawl, it does matter a lot, because only the first hex in the chosen route will effectively be used.

Overall, the routing rules seem to be designed to take as much control away from the player as they can, but I honestly don't know how this one should be resolved. Count me in the "please rewrite the routing rules" camp.

 

[Stewart]

You aren't routing towards the Destination if you stay in the depression.
Simple as that.
If the destination was J7, then you'd have a choice.
But you'd have to Rout to K7 regardless.

 

[Larry]

absent a definition of toward in the ASLRB or a contextual definition extracted from the text, I would use the dictionary to define toward.

Definition of TOWARD

in the direction of; along a course leading to; in relation to… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Sparafucil3]

absent a definition of toward in the ASLRB or a contextual definition extracted from the text, I would use the dictionary to define toward.

Great. How do you measure that? Hexes? MF's? Refer to the same diagram and make K7/L7 hex-side a cliff hex-side. How does that affect your answer? If you define it as hexes, the LC isn't valid is it is still range 1. If you count it as MF's, it is on the shortest legal rout path and actually closing the range. I agree you offer a reasonable approach but as @Philippe D. points out, there is more than one way to count "closer". FWIW, IMO closer is defined in MF's, not hexes, as that's how you chose the rout destination. Of course, this is further confused as you can not rout closer to a KEU measured in hexes. -- jim

 

[Stewart]

Decreasing range

 

[Sparafucil3]

Decreasing range

Counted how? In hexes? In MF's? Each has their own merits and each has their own detractions. As I said in the post you're replying to, make K7/L7 a cliff hex-side and the Low Crawl would be legal as you're on the shortest path to K7. Clearly, the range in hexes hasn't decreased, but the range in MF's has. -- jim

 

[ScottRomanowski]

If someone asks Perry, perhaps they could point out the pros and cons of either decision, or link here?
What about "decrease the range in hexes; if that's not possible, decrease the distance in MF along the shortest path"?

 

[Larry]

Routing from L7 to K8, in the example provided here, decreases neither the range in hexes nor MF to the woods in K7. One or the other must be present, hexes or MF, to qualify as towards, linguistically.

 

[von Marwitz]

If someone asks Perry, perhaps they could point out the pros and cons of either decision, or link here?

My usual routine when filing a 'Perry Sez' is to include the following into the email:

• The appropriate rules quotes
• The question in the required format answerable by 'yes' or 'no'.
• The link to the discussion of the topic here at GameSquad forum for some context.

I believe that this is appreciated. Can't harm to present everything on a silver platter.

von Marwitz

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Rules quotes is usually not needed when send Q&A to MMP - especially if they have already been quoted in a thread somewhere - provide a link to the thread is often enough.