B30.5

[Chas]

Just trying to confirm a broken unit must Rout towards a PB (if it is closest Rout hex) even if Overstacked.

 

[EagleIV]

Per B30.111 overstacking in a PB is not allowed. That location can't be a valid rout target since you can't enter it.

 

[Chas]

The ASLRB seems to contradict your statement. I am just trying to clarify, not arguing one way or the other.

B30.5 "A pillbox is the equivalent of a building for rout...."

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)....."

I havent been able to find any type of Errata/QA on it. The above linkage appears to say one might be forced to rout to the PB hex. of an already 'full' PB.

Am I missing another rule somewhere? I would think there would be an EXC in B30.5 if you didnt have to rout to a full PB.

 

[Juan SantaX]

Hi

Overstacking in a pillbox is NA (A5.6)

 

[EagleIV]

A Pillbox is normally a valid rout target if you can actually rout into it. Since the PB would be overstacked with the routing unit, you need to count the number of MF to enter the PB as 10 million, not just 1. It will therefore never be the nearest Rally terrain within reach that turn.

 

[Chas]

I dont disagree, and yes, I definitely understand that a PB may not be Overstacked.
However, the rules linkages say hex. If it said Location this is cut and dry. So technically the MF needed to enter a full PB (infinite) is irrelevant as worded.

And is it kind of silly to rout to a full PB? Absolutely!

 

[gorkowskij]

The ASLRB seems to contradict your statement. I am just trying to clarify, not arguing one way or the other.

B30.5 "A pillbox is the equivalent of a building for rout...."

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)....."

I havent been able to find any type of Errata/QA on it. The above linkage appears to say one might be forced to rout to the PB hex. of an already 'full' PB.

Am I missing another rule somewhere? I would think there would be an EXC in B30.5 if you didnt have to rout to a full PB.

You are correct, you have to go to the PB. There is no exception for over stacking that prohibits entry. By the same token, you would have to rout to an over stacked building hex, even if the additional MP required to enter that building would preclude your entry.

 

[EagleIV]

It looks like the unit will rout to the hex and end its rout there unless it can continue routing to an ADJACENT

You are correct, you have to go to the PB. There is no exception for over stacking that prohibits entry. By the same token, you would have to rout to an over stacked building hex, even if the additional MP required to enter that building would preclude your entry.

Actually there is Q&A that says when the building/etc. is/will be overstacked you count the actual cost to enter the location when determining your rout destination and if you can't get to the hex during the current RtPh you ignore it when picking your rout destination.
There is still the problem in the OP that while you can't enter the PB location you can get to hex so it sounds like you rout to the hex and end your RtPh there outside the PB. Since you aren't in a woods/building you can't continue directly to another woods/building.

 

[DVexile]

I think @EagleIV has it correct based on A10.51 and further clarified by a Q&A:

A10.51: …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.

Note in the above the use of the word Location.

And the Q&A:

A5.11 & A10.51 When determining the closest (in MF) building/woods hex that a broken unit can rout to, is the MF cost for entering an overstacked hex included in the MF calculation?

A. Yes. [Gen23.2; An90; An95w; An96; Mw]

 

[Chas]

Thank you for indulging me.
I, nor anyone I know, plays that you would have to Rout to a 'full' PB.
If you had to, it could be problematic for me.
When reading those rules it shocked me and want to be able to actually point to the rule.
I am not 100% sure the QA fully clarifies, but it is good enough for me.

 

[Nearmiss]

Note the (in MF) within the rules. When calculating the MF to a full PB it would be infinite as mentioned earlier. Point to this part of A10.51 should it become necessary.

 

[DVexile]

Thank you for indulging me.
I, nor anyone I know, plays that you would have to Rout to a 'full' PB.
If you had to, it could be problematic for me.
When reading those rules it shocked me and want to be able to actually point to the rule.
I am not 100% sure the QA fully clarifies, but it is good enough for me.

Really B30.5 and A10.51 already says all you need it to. Substituting PB into A10.51 as instructed:

If no non-ignorable PB Location can be reached during that RtPh...

A full PB Location is not reachable. I think that's the end of the story right there, actually no need to reference the Q&A or talk about infinite MFs.

 

[Juan SantaX]

I´m not sure of the meaning of "..not traversable ..." at A10.51 (in Spanish it would be I think " no transitable"), but it seems to me that a "full" PB is not "traversable". And I think the meaning is the same, in this situation, to "reachable". You dont have to rout to a burning building or woods, neither to a "full" PB. But my knowledge of the rules is weak...

 

[Michael R]

But my knowledge of the rules is weak...

Didn’t you go 4 and 1 at the ASO?

 

[Stewart]

MF in a occupied PB is NA...
So, it's not the closest in MF
Overstacked locations must be considered IF they are the closest in MF, Most of the time the overstacking penalties will USUALLY mean the unit can continue to a better location.

BUT, it's irrelevant as the unit cannot enter the location. MF is NA. It really is as simple as that. Do we calculate MF across a River? no as it's NA

 

[Juan SantaX]

Didn’t you go 4 and 1 at the ASO?

Just luck