Rout Destination

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
939
Country
llLithuania
But that is specific to the situation where the routing unit is in the same hex as an enemy unit is it not?
That is the situation, but it does call out that a rout target is specified even if that target is not a place for the rout to end. To me (I know, questionable) it is a very short trivial step to making the rout target made independent of legality of target/path.

<shrug> Not seeing how starting in the same location stops that?
 

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
231
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited States
That is the situation, but it does call out that a rout target is specified even if that target is not a place for the rout to end. To me (I know, questionable) it is a very short trivial step to making the rout target made independent of legality of target/path.

<shrug> Not seeing how starting in the same location stops that?
I think because the specific situation by rule calls for the unit to rout to an Adjacent hex first, but not sure on that. However I do feel that if the interpretation of making the rout target independent of legality of target/path then it calls into question quite a bit of the Comprehensive rout example in the rules.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
939
Country
llLithuania
I think because the specific situation by rule calls for the unit to rout to an Adjacent hex first, but not sure on that. However I do feel that if the interpretation of making the rout target independent of legality of target/path then it calls into question quite a bit of the Comprehensive rout example in the rules.
Have not had a chance to go over the rout example in detail with this in mind.
 

CTKnudsen

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
327
Reaction score
153
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
Yes, as I understand it K4, M6 (edit: not M6, that is 4MF) and N5 are all the closest woods/building (3MF) and are all ignorable (no further from a KEU than where it started) so we go to the 4MF woods/buildings K2, (edit)M6, O6, P5. O6(edit)O6/M6 won't be a legal rout (closer to KEU) so that leaves K2, P5. You can't reach P5 (5 hexes from K8) because you'll first have to be 6 hexes away in your first hex of movement (N3) so that leaves K2. You can't reach K2 (6 hexes from K8) since you'll have to be at 7 hexes away in the second hex of movement (N2).

Since you can't reach a non-ignorable hex, you can go wherever. I presume to(wards) N0 or P1.

(edits: tweaked rationale for M6)
Funny, I never thought of using the "no further than" rationale for K4/N5 - I would reject these based more on the "can't end/move ADJACENT" rule, but I think applying "no further than" might be a more discerning application of the rules, at least as regards determining rout destination. Key here, however, is that since all the 3 and 4 MF destinations are not viable b/c they violate the strictures of the first bit of A10.51, then the routing unit must select N0 or P1.

A10.51 seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me?

No mention of moving closer than the original location.....just moving closer. The highlighted passage states categorically it applies during the rout after leaving LOS, and by a trivial extension, it applies during the whole of the rout, LOS or not.
Yes, you can see above where I admitted that I've evidently been playing this incorrectly. I am still not entirely convinced, however, that the initial MF calculation is done without considering legal (i.e. not adjacent to a KEU) rout paths. I wish the rout example were a tad more comprehensive as regards this.
 

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
231
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited States
That is the situation, but it does call out that a rout target is specified even if that target is not a place for the rout to end. To me (I know, questionable) it is a very short trivial step to making the rout target made independent of legality of target/path.

<shrug> Not seeing how starting in the same location stops that?
I think that because of this from A10.51:

"A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, unless in doing so it is leaving that enemy unit’s Location."

In the Q and A the move adjacent to the enemy unit is not an illegal move so therefore it is a valid inital rout destination, however on getting there because it is adjacent it must refigure a new destination. That's the only way I can reconcile the Q and A with all of the rout examples in the rules.
 

CTKnudsen

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
327
Reaction score
153
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
Have not had a chance to go over the rout example in detail with this in mind.
I just went through it, and I'm sure someone will be along presently to correct me, but I didn't see anything that clearly illustrated a situation in which a destination was chosen that clearly showed MF being counted through Locations adjacent to a KEU.
 

zgrose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
400
Location
Kingwood, TX
Country
llUnited States
Funny, I never thought of using the "no further than" rationale for K4/N5 - I would reject these based more on the "can't end/move ADJACENT" rule, but I think applying "no further than" might be a more discerning application of the rules,
I find locating the closest woods/building, determining if it is ignorable or not, and then determining whether one can legally reach it or not (and then rinse-repeat if needed) is the best way to stay in the rules. I think there are frequent edge cases where one MUST rout to X and can not and this approach catches them. But I will admit I've never done an exhaustive review to prove it one way or another.
 

CTKnudsen

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
327
Reaction score
153
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
This is the aide memoire that I used when I started:

1, Do I have to rout (Open ground in normal range of armed KEU, Adjacent to armed KEU – note that broken does = armed)
2. Where? Bldg or woods (pillbox) closest in MF.
3. Can I make it to the destination in one turn?
4. Rule out ones that are closer to a KEU.
5. Consider equidistant to KEU – possible, but not essential. May ignore a valid rout target if it is equidistant, even if there is otherwise no valid woods/bldg target.
6. Consider possible interdiction/low crawl - Interdictors – Not Pinned/Broken/CX, not in good order, not at long range, not Stun/ BU or needs to change CA, not a leader w/out SW, not any other ½ FP unit (EXC Mortars).
7. Rout!

I should add something in #7 about not decreasing range in any way, even during the rout. Or perhaps in #4 - Rule out ones that are closer to a KEU, or require moving away then closer to a KEU.
 

zgrose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
400
Location
Kingwood, TX
Country
llUnited States
This is the aide memoire that I used when I started:

1, Do I have to rout (Open ground in normal range of armed KEU, Adjacent to armed KEU – note that broken does = armed)
I don't believe the underlined clause is fully correct, or I'm misunderstanding your notation. A broken squad need not rout away from a broken enemy unit if it isn't in Open Ground.

A10.5 " ...nor—regardless of terrain—may it end a RtPh ADJACENT to or in the same Location with a Known enemy unit that is both unbroken and armed ..."

Comprehensive Rout Example:
"The broken squad in building O5 does not have to rout since it is not ADJACENT to an unbroken KEU..."
 

SSlunt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
222
Reaction score
44
Location
Calgary AB
Country
llCanada
If we go back to the original question but remove the German in K8 does the destination route location become K2 or P6?

The rule state the hexes you do not count ca be "not traversable (e.g., through a Blaze, unbridged Water Obstacle, Cliff, etc) I would argue that N4 is traversable as one could move through and there is a case when you could route through it (If you have and enemy is in your hex) So is must be used when calculating the MF cost to the destination hex.
 
Last edited:

Philippe D.

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
467
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
If the units in K8 are removed, then K2, O6 and P5 can be reached without ever getting closer to a KEU (4 MF away, can be reached with a rout of 5MF); and I don't know how either could be ignored, so the target (still assuming No Quarter) has to be one of them.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
1,074
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
That is the situation, but it does call out that a rout target is specified even if that target is not a place for the rout to end. To me (I know, questionable) it is a very short trivial step to making the rout target made independent of legality of target/path.

<shrug> Not seeing how starting in the same location stops that?
I believe the following lays out why the building ADJACENT to a KEU in the same hex initially would be considered the initial destination hex. A10.51 "A routing unit may never rout toward a Known armed enemy unit (even if that enemy unit is broken or disrupted), while in that enemy unit's LOS, in any way which decreases the range in hexes between the routing unit and the Known armed enemy unit [EXC: Passengers, D6.1]; nor may it move toward such an enemy unit after leaving its LOS during that RtPh; nor, if ADJACENT to a Known armed enemy unit, may it rout into another hex ADJACENT to that same enemy unit. A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, unless in doing so it is leaving that enemy unit's Location. Otherwise, a routing unit may move toward an enemy unit. Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements, a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods hex (even if overstacked) unless that route is through/into a known minefield or FFE, or is not traversable (e.g., through a Blaze, unbridged Water Obstacle, Cliff, etc.). ". If both sides started in the same hex, it obviously is not ADJACENT & therefore must abide by the requirement to rout to the nearest building/woods hex (in the Q&A, Bldg K2 of the A10.531 example) even though it cannot remain there because of the other requirements for routing and must redirect at that point.

If the situation were different (i.e. starting ADJACENT as in the OP's query), it must abide by the requirements of the 1st sentence and therefore make its rout destination based upon those stipulations. That is to say he either surrenders or failing that must select either N0 or P1 as his initial destination hexes as only those two meet all the requirements of A10.51 to include "...as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise...".
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,519
Reaction score
2,146
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
That is the situation, but it does call out that a rout target is specified even if that target is not a place for the rout to end. To me (I know, questionable) it is a very short trivial step to making the rout target made independent of legality of target/path.
Rout target is independent of whether one can end the RtPh there or not. As far as I know (NRBH) it is legal to rout to a target hex where one will be eliminated for failure to rout.
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
I've always understood the rule to be that you calculate the MF cost w/o respect to the legality of the rout path, but w/ respect to the legality of the move (e.g. can't move through enemy units, etc).
Once a rout destination is determined, then one calculates if they can reach it legally (i.e "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route..."). If one cannot, then they're free to move (legally) where you would like (i.e. "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...).

At least that's how I've always read the flow of A10.51.

I can see the confusion.
Take this example.
K5 in the pic is a BUILDING (not orchard)
MMG unit doesn't exist.

Does K5 become your destination hex due to the Closest in MF? as you are ignoring the rout restrictions.
You are saying closest first and then on your way, you have restrictions VS the opposite of choosing LEGAL hexes that you can enter in determining Rout locations.
As most suggest in the 5MF distance Locations

If you ignore the legality and just focus on the "pure' MF needed, then you'd have to select the building hexes that are 3 hexes away, or for that matter Enemy location hexes.

Do you see how it breaks down if you go by PURE MF distance without first implementing the restrictions?
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
If the situation were different (i.e. starting ADJACENT as in the OP's query), it must abide by the requirements of the 1st sentence and therefore make its rout destination based upon those stipulations. That is to say he either surrenders or failing that must select either N0 or P1 as his initial destination hexes as only those two meet all the requirements of A10.51 to include "...as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise...".
Funny thing though, in simplifying the rule, SK seems to read quite differently. It lists the stipulations AFTER stating selecting a location that is within 6MF...

Read it from that perspective, it kinda boggles my mind as the read is completely reversed.

But I agree, the stipulations MUST be met first and then the MF is calculated from that.
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Rout target is independent of whether one can end the RtPh there or not. As far as I know (NRBH) it is legal to rout to a target hex where one will be eliminated for failure to rout.
Correct, but the stipulations in determination of rout location is still met at the time of rout.
You could say, the enemy building adjacent to you is your rout destination as its the closest building
 

zgrose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
400
Location
Kingwood, TX
Country
llUnited States
I can see the confusion.
Take this example.
K5 in the pic is a BUILDING (not orchard)
MMG unit doesn't exist.

Does K5 become your destination hex due to the Closest in MF? as you are ignoring the rout restrictions.
You are saying closest first and then on your way, you have restrictions VS the opposite of choosing LEGAL hexes that you can enter in determining Rout locations.
As most suggest in the 5MF distance Locations

If you ignore the legality and just focus on the "pure' MF needed, then you'd have to select the building hexes that are 3 hexes away, or for that matter Enemy location hexes.

Do you see how it breaks down if you go by PURE MF distance without first implementing the restrictions?
ASLRB
"Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements, a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods..."

My summary so far:
"I find locating the closest woods/building, determining if it is ignorable or not, and then determining whether one can legally reach it or not (and then rinse-repeat if needed) is the best way to stay in the rules."

The K5 building would be closest but it can not be legally reached so I believe my summary holds true in practical terms. However, looking over the Comprehensive Examples, it seems as the intent is that if you can't reach anything at 1 MF, then you check the 2 MF locations, then the 3 MF locations, etc up to 6 MF. If you still can't reach a woods/building, *then* you can go anywhere. I extrapolate this from the phrase: "Able to ignore all rout destinations within 6 MF, the broken unit is free to rout anywhere it can legally reach on the board [10.51]."

Either way, I believe one only cares about the "base" MF for calculating closest, not the MF that could possibly be spent. Why? Well I'm not seeing any instruction to do so and if you're the DEFENDER, that theoretical MF could change whereas the "true" MF never does. The only conditions I see in the RB are that the true route is through a minefield/FFE or otherwise not traversable (can't jump off a Cliff into the building, etc).

Probably worth a Perry Sez, I think this image and question would sum up the question:

Q: Is the closest building/woods to the broken unit in L3 the Wooden Building in M5 (3 MF; the blue path) away or are both the Stone and Wooden Building equally at 4 MF (the red paths) for routing purposes since the broken unit could not enter M4.

Screen Shot 2019-01-12 at 8.49.58 PM.png
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
939
Country
llLithuania
Agreed it is worthy of a PerrySez. Might be worth a preliminary general question......something like “When determining the rout target, is the absolute distance used or the distance along a valid rout path used?” Otherwise, your question and illustration capture the situation well.
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
INCREDIBLE!
I'm ecstatic to see the responses and discussion on the Rout of the M4 unit.

It seems a house divided on the destination.
With this pic (no MMG guy on the bottom)

Some say we take the closest in MF into account FIRST, before applying the restrictions. (SK rules seems to do this by virtue of the placement of them)
Others say we take restrictive hexes into account PRIOR to Closest MF.
In the pic the "X"'s are the restrictive areas.
NOTE: the Closest in cover is actually L3 then K4 which no one seemed to recognize (besides the building of the 8-1, which would be just as illegal a hex as any of the X's which no one mentioned as well.)
ASLRB lists restrictions prior to destination hex determination, ASLSK RB lists destination THEN application of movement restrictions. (as its read linearly)
So, I'd love to see a consensus on this BASED on the fact that this is a FUNDAMENTAL RULE that is used EVERY single player turn.
 

Attachments

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
ASLRB
"Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements, a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods..."

My summary so far:
"I find locating the closest woods/building, determining if it is ignorable or not, and then determining whether one can legally reach it or not (and then rinse-repeat if needed) is the best way to stay in the rules."

The K5 building would be closest but it can not be legally reached so I believe my summary holds true in practical terms. However, looking over the Comprehensive Examples, it seems as the intent is that if you can't reach anything at 1 MF, then you check the 2 MF locations, then the 3 MF locations, etc up to 6 MF. If you still can't reach a woods/building, *then* you can go anywhere. I extrapolate this from the phrase: "Able to ignore all rout destinations within 6 MF, the broken unit is free to rout anywhere it can legally reach on the board [10.51]."
It doesn't have to be Legally reached, just that the routing unit routs to/towards it. You can take >1 RtPh to get there.
That's my point. Paths through hexes adjacent to KEU are counted in the MF or not? since the Routing unit CANT go there anyway at the outset of its RtPh.
 
Top