Rout Destination

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
1,074
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
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.
Yup, the rule is a jumble of wording. I don't have the SK's so I can't comment there, but it would certainly change the conversation if presented in the fashion you speak of. All I can say is that is how I parse out the presentation of the rule in the ASLRB, but I know I've stumbled over it for quite some time before I came to "my" understanding of it.:dontknow:rolleyes:
 

CTKnudsen

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
327
Reaction score
153
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
Good to see I am not the only one weighing a Q&A here, although I don't like pressing that button if it becomes clear I'm going against a commonly held community belief.

I think the question really boils down to what happens first when choosing destination. Do you count straight MF "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.)" ONLY and then start paring down based on whether there is a path that will avoid moving toward/adjacent? Or, do you factor those limitations into the MF cost in order to choose a valid destination that is within 6MF?

Consider the following example. A unit has two possible rout destinations. One is at 4MF not considering enemy unit positions, one is at 5MF. Neither are ignorable as being equidistant to KEU. However, when enemy positions are taken into consideration, the actual MF costs to rout are 8MF and 5MF, respectively. So by the "crow flies" interpretation, the unit would have to declare the 4/8MF destination as its target, and then not get there. If the opposite interpretation is the case, then we run into a situation in which there is a perfectly reachable destination that will be ignored because the unit is trying to get to the other one.

The other thing that is interesting is that if you think through the last part of A10.51, the "crow flies" MF calculation becomes a little illogical. If the unit's lowest-MF destination is unreachable, the bit about being free to move if there is nothing reachable implies that a unit will ignore a destination that is lower MF but unreachable in a single RtPh in favour of one that is actually reachable but has a higher direct MF cost.

One also wishes that someone would fully define "ignorable" in the context of routing...
 

Kijug

Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
61
Reaction score
23
Location
Texas
Country
llUnited States
To determine rout path, you consider the closest, in MF, destination that isn't towards a KEU. Once the destination is determined, you can, "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route".

In your example, the 4 MF destination would be the "closest in MF" and that which you would head towards. However, you can use up to 6 MF if needed to weasel around and not get interdicted, but you must reach the destination since it is only 4 MF away.
 

CTKnudsen

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
327
Reaction score
153
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
To determine rout path, you consider the closest, in MF, destination that isn't towards a KEU. Once the destination is determined, you can, "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route".

In your example, the 4 MF destination would be the "closest in MF" and that which you would head towards. However, you can use up to 6 MF if needed to weasel around and not get interdicted, but you must reach the destination since it is only 4 MF away.
Even if it is not possible to reach that destination in 4MF without routing through hexes ADAJCENT to a KEU? What if the actual legal rout path to that hex is 7MF? What we are wondering about here is whether that closest destination in MF is counted considering legal rout paths or not. What do you do in the rare cases where you can rout to a hex where you are not moving toward a KEU, but in order to avoid moving ADJACENT, your rout path has to change, and is now longer in MF than an alternate destination.
 

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
To determine rout path, you consider the closest, in MF, destination that isn't towards a KEU. Once the destination is determined, you can, "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route".

In your example, the 4 MF destination would be the "closest in MF" and that which you would head towards. However, you can use up to 6 MF if needed to weasel around and not get interdicted, but you must reach the destination since it is only 4 MF away.
Not if the 4MF destination is "as the crow flies" (N4, O5, P5)
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
309
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Personally, I think we are supposed to rank possible rout destinations based upon direct MFs required for the brokie to reach them - regardless of enemy presence. It's much simpler although situations can still get very complex (the other way leads to much madness!). Frankly, I think it's crazy that such a basic concept can still be so poorly explained by the RB.

For the OP example: K4, M6, and N5 are all 3MF away. Afterwards, we ask if the unit can legally rout to each Location.

Since it can't rout in any of the above 3 cases, we proceed to those Locations that are 4MF away and repeat the question of legality. Here we find four options - K2, K6, O6 and P5 - but only K2 or P5 can be chosen as the others require moving closer to a KEU (K8).

Once we study K2, however, we discover that the unit could almost reach it legally (N3-N2-M2-L1-K2) except that the last step would move it closer to K8 after having moved away.

As for P5, this one could have been ignored since it is no further from K8 than when we started. But regardless, the only path there also moves the unit further then back closer to K8 (from P4 into P5). Thus, we move onto Locations that are 5 MFs away...

I think this leads to the following answer: P1 must be the target. In any case, Low Crawl or interdiction (assuming it didn't surrender anyway)!

NOTE: I obviously do not believe that the RB text beginning "Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements..." is at all referring to the calculation of rout MF. It is simply saying that the literally nearest Location(s) must be chosen if the unit can legally get there:

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)​
Otherwise, I think that the parenthesized text would need to be much clearer:

(in MF calculated along a legal rout path with regard to KEU presence at the start of its RtPh)​
 
Last edited:

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
231
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited States
Look at the Comprehensive rout example for the German units in J6. It states that the only valid rout destinations for these units are L9 and M9 (both 5 MF away). If you did not take into account illegal rout paths when determining the nearest rout destination then M8 would be the destination which is ony 4 MF away.
 

SSlunt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
222
Reaction score
44
Location
Calgary AB
Country
llCanada
Look at the Comprehensive rout example for the German units in J6. It states that the only valid rout destinations for these units are L9 and M9 (both 5 MF away). If you did not take into account illegal rout paths when determining the nearest rout destination then M8 would be the destination which is ony 4 MF away.
Not true - to route to M8 in 4 you have to move closer to Broken unit in 05 by going into K7.
 
Last edited:

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
105
Location
State of Confusion
Country
llSlovenia
So this is what, the 10,001st example that proves the Rout rules are totally fucked up?
Or maybe just mostly irrelevent, since obviously they have always been ignored in real play -- otherwise at some point in the last 20 years two players would have expressed these two contrary interps during a tournement game and the question raised. Or has it been raised many times, and always been reconciled with a coin flip, in the interest of getting back to playing a game, which is supposed to be fun, as opposed to dancing in combat boots on the head of a pin?
 

General Mayhem

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
231
Location
Taunton
Country
llUnited States
Not true - to route to M8 in 4 you have to move closer to Broken unit in 05 by going into K7.
Hadn't spotted him. I still reckon that you take account of the legality of the route when determining the nearest rout destination. It does seem to me that there is some selective rule picking going on here. Why is the "moving closer to a KEU" taken into account when picking the rout destination but not the moving adjacent to a KEU. If you apply one of the conditions you must surely apply both. In which case the example in my post 47 still proves the point that you have to take them into account when picking the rout destination.
 
Last edited:

Stewart

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
56
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
... in the interest of getting back to playing a game, which is supposed to be fun, as opposed to dancing in combat boots on the head of a pin?
Consistency is your answer,
Why do you roll on the 4 column with a 467 with no ill affecting mods, etc.?
Because it has 4 FP by rule/definition.
Determination of Rout destination is the CORE of setting up a strategy to assault/retreat/etc. Getting the CORE rule misinterpreted is fundamental to the structure of the game.

If you want to play rout adjacent to enemy units, by all means, do so. No student of ASL will take the gameplay seriously. As for one that has ended up reading the RB a couple of times...Its a complete WASTE of time and effort NOT to get the fundamental rules interpreted properly.

Again, I think the ASLRB has it stated clearly, HOWEVER, the ASLSK RB doesn't quite do that. Hence, misleading players that move FROM SK to ASL in a FUNDAMENTAL aspect. No snipers, ?ment, bypass....who cares...BUT Fire attacks, Routing, and CC are the CORE backbone to the game. Get that screwed up....and you might as well go play RISK. The RB is a couple of pages shorter.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
1,074
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Compare the 2 rule passages in terms of FOCUS.
Yes, I agree that the two are in conflict with one another because the operative phrase of the ASLRB A10.51 presentation seems to be "...Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements,.."thus inferring one must determine what are valid rout paths first; Whereas the ASLSK rule seems to be predicated upon 1st establishing a rout destination within 6MF regardless of valid rout paths or not and then determining how to get there.

PS. Thanks for ASLSK rule posting!
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
105
Location
State of Confusion
Country
llSlovenia
The SK format is better than the ASL format because it begins with what you are required to accomplish, and then gives the restrictions on how to do it. The ASL starts with 200 words of exceptions that have no meaning, until you get to the statement of purpose.

Both are deficient in style by creating a "wall of text" instead of numbering or bullet-pointing the several restrictions. This makes the procedure harder to understand than it could be.
 

SSlunt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
222
Reaction score
44
Location
Calgary AB
Country
llCanada
I was thinking (always a scary thing)

A Non Traversable hex would be on you could not move into. Since you could technically move through the Adjacent hex I do not think that you can discount the adjacent hex when determining the destination hex.

Or since you are talking about Routing you are not moving so the hex becomes a Non Transverable hex

Bigger question: Has a Perry Sez question been posted on this?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,519
Reaction score
2,146
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
I am fairly certain one only considers legal routes when determing the clostest (within 6 MF) woods/building. Otherwise one might end up in a situation where the closest can only be reach in 6 MF via an illegal route (put rubble in hex M2 in the illustration in post #1, e.g.). Seems unlikely to me that is the intention of the rule.
 
Top