Ignoring building/woods hex question during rout

[klasmalmstrom]

The EXC says it, that is the intention.
NRBH, but I will check the rout example in the rules later.

 

[Robin Reeve]

A10.51 "if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex"...
C6 is no farther from D4 than E5.
Both are at 2 hexes distance.
I think C6 is ignorable.

Phew... I feel suddenly older.

 

[DVexile]

A10.51 "if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex"...
C6 is no farther from D4 than E5.
Both are at 2 hexes distance.
I think C6 is ignorable.

Phew... I feel suddenly older.

The broken squad is 6 hexes from the 447 in Z8. So you are saying the broken squad may ignore the buildings in U5, S4, S6, R5 and Q4 as well as the woods in S8 and T0 because they are 6 hexes or less away from the 467 in W4?

I don't see this as a contrived or rare example at all. If you interpret the rule the way you are advocating it would seem in a large number of cases one could just rout wherever they want.

EDIT: Hmmm... maybe you are saying something even more different than that. I'm going to re-read the thread a few times - getting lost. Yeah, OK, I see another odd reading of the rule, see next post for related example to that interpretation.

 

[DVexile]

OK, this seems to be the other unusual interpretation of the rule I think is also being advocated here which I don't think adds up.

The claim seems to be S6 could be ignored because S6 is just as far from KEU 467 in V5 as it is from the broken unit's starting hex X6?

As best as I can tell folks are getting confused as to whether we measure the change in distance from the same KEU or whether we can mix and match distances from different KEUs (that's the example in my previous post). In addition folks seem to be getting confused by what is being compared in "if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit that its starting hex" (that's the example in the current post).

I think it is easy to resolve the ambiguity when you apply the possible interpretations of the phrasing with the examples posted above. The only interpretation that seems to make sense (and is a perfectly valid reading of the language) is that you ignore hexes which are the same distance to a particular KEU as your starting hex is from that same KEU. Other interpretations lead to bizarre results like the two posted examples that really don't seem to match any sensible intent of the routing rules.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

You compare the two red distances and the two orange distances. The green distance is not a factor. In both the red/orange, C6 takes the broken unit farther away from the Known enemy unit (which routing is usually all about).



A10.51 should be read like this:
"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 IS FROM THAT SAME KNOWN ENEMY UNIT."

If you don't end up farther away from the enemy, you can ignore it - otherwise not.

Imagine a building in hex E6 - if the distance from E5 to E6 was a factor then that buiding hex could be ignored since it is only one hex from E5, whereas it is two hexes from D4. I have never seen anyone play it like that.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

View attachment 24626

The broken squad is 6 hexes from the 447 in Z8. So you are saying the broken squad may ignore the buildings in U5, S4, S6, R5 and Q4 as well as the woods in S8 and T0 because they are 6 hexes or less away from the 467 in W4?

In this case it can ignore U5 since both U5 and V4 are six hexes from Z8. It can't ignore S4 and S6, as those hexes are 7 and 8 hexes from Z8. I.e., the distance from Z8 compared to from V4 increases.

 

[lt_steiner]

Thanks to all for the very interesting discussion and thanks to Klas who concluded it in a perfectly clear manner (as always).

 

[Robertleclerc]

No. See post 16 to see which distances are compared.

D4 is two hexes from C6. Broken unit is one hex from D4. So C6 takes the broken unit farther away from D4.

So If I understand well, the distance comparison is made vs each KEU case individually, not as a whole situation, right ?

In this particular case, the end result (ignorable hex or not) varies according to this Interpretation.
1- individual case comparisons : vs D4 squad (from 1 hex to 2) , vs D3 HS (from 2 hexes to 3) so C6 is mandatory
2- whole situation case : D3 is 2 hexes away from Brokie at start , C6 is 2 hexes away from D4 (also KEU at start) so C6 is ignorable.
I think this is the debate here.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

So If I understand well, the distance comparison is made vs each KEU case individually, not as a whole situation, right ?

Correct. A hex might not be ignorable due to one Known enemy unit, but could be due to another.

In this particular case, the end result (ignorable hex or not) varies according to this Interpretation.
1- individual case comparisons : vs D4 squad (from 1 hex to 2) , vs D3 HS (from 2 hexes to 3) so C6 is mandatory

Correct.

2- whole situation case : D3 is 2 hexes away from Brokie at start , C6 is 2 hexes away from D4 (also KEU at start) so C6 is ignorable.
I think this is the debate here.

It was a question of which distances to compare - not whether one looked at each unit individually.

 

[Stewart]

First, the HS in D3 is a KEU to the brokie and 2 hexes away. Hex C6 is also 2 hexes distance from the brokie and as such can be ignored as a rout destination, A10.51 EXC as you noted since this releases the broken unit from having to claim C6 as the nearest in MF.

Not quite....
If there were woods in G6 can it ignore them?
They are 2 hexes from the brokie and the brokie is 2 hexes from an enemy...
Its relation is to Position TO enemy unit and that enemies units Position TO the destination...your distance to the destination is irrelevant.

 

[Stewart]

Go back and Read the Comprehensive rout example.
over 50% of ASLers of all experience levels F@#$ up routing often...
Just check the rules Slooooowly reading them for comprehension...breaking each sentence down.
If it takes you less than 10 min to read through that section...you've read it too fast.

 

[Honosbinda]

A10.51 should be read like this:
"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 IS FROM THAT SAME KNOWN ENEMY UNIT."

If you don't end up farther away from the enemy, you can ignore it - otherwise not.

English is read the way it is written. Why not change the rule so it reads EXACTLY AS ABOVE -- that is, issue the errata officially as you've stated it -- so it's more clear and is not subject to misinterpretation?
I'm sure everyone, like me, is tired of getting into discussions about this.
The comprehensive rout example captures this problem but as an example, it's less convincing that a well-written rule would be.
bye!

 

[EagleIV]

Where does it say the rout destination has to be further away than the KEU. It states the the ignorable destination has to be no further away than it starting hex.

The destination can be the same distance to a KEU or farther away. The middle of the first sentence in A10.51 says that a routing unit can't rout towards a KEU that is has seen during that RtPh even if it can't see that unit any more precluding the destination being closer to a Known (to the routing unit) Enemy Unit.

 

[Stewart]

I'm 3 hexes from ENEMY...
Enemy is 3 hexes from my destination...
I can ignore...It's as SIMPLE as that

YOUR displacement from the destination is irrelevant.
i.e. I'm 1 hex from destination. I'm 3 hexes from enemy. Enemy is 3 hexes from my destination 1 hex away...I can ignore...
Routing=/=Rocket Science
I have about 40 SK videos that go over routing in each one.

All the players that have watched and engaged in those discussions are far better ROUTing than 80% of ASL players. Its not hard.