THINK TANK Come Alive
Where is the Rout Destination and WHY?
Where can he NOT rout to and WHY?
Where is the Rout Destination and WHY?
Where can he NOT rout to and WHY?
Attachments
-
35.3 KB Views: 94
Nope, actually rout to P5 stays equidistant to enemy units in the last 2-3 hexes.I may be wrong but wouldn't routing to P5 entail closing at some point on KEU in K8 so therefore P5 is not a valid rout destination. I believe that the only valid rout destinations are N0 and P1 both 5 hexes away, but only if NQ is in effect.
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).Another possibility? I've been playing this wrong the whole time, and valid destinations are calculated by tracing paths that can disregard whether the unit can actually rout through the hex or not. In this case, both K2 and P5 are valid targets, although P5 will still be ignorable.
Not sure if I understand how you differentiate between legality of rout path and legality of move here. Do you mean that for determining valid rout destination the MF is governed by shortest possible MF regardless of presence of enemy, so long any prospective rout (even over multiple RtPh) does not violate moving "towards" a KEU at any point in the rout? I take "toward" to mean "reducing distance in hexes", BTW.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.
Of course, I am still stuck in the mindset that you can close a bit so long as you don't get closer than when you started. If that is wrong, then N0 and P1, or low crawl are the only options barring surrender.N0 & P1 are the only valid rout destination hexes as they are the closest in MF at the time of the initial rout determination that do not entail violating other conditions of rout (e.g. moving through a hex that would bring it adjacent/closer to a KEU). As the 1st hex to be entered must be N3 the next can be no closer to a KEU either and still must abide by the fewest number of MF to get to the destination hex [EXC: use of shellholes, foxholes, etc.]; It can then rout to either N2 (getting no closer to L3) or O3 (getting further away from all units), and thence on to either N1-N0 or O2/P2 and then to the destination hex as appropriate. K2 & P5 are out because once the rout has commenced you would be moving closer to a KEU at some point, Q6 is out because of the MF to get there.
A10.51 seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me?Of course, I am still stuck in the mindset that you can close a bit so long as you don't get closer than when you started. If that is wrong, then N0 and P1, or low crawl are the only options barring surrender.
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.A10.51 DIRECTION: 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. ....
Again A10.51Not sure if I understand how you differentiate between legality of rout path and legality of move here. Do you mean that for determining valid rout destination the MF is governed by shortest possible MF regardless of presence of enemy, so long any prospective rout (even over multiple RtPh) does not violate moving "towards" a KEU at any point in the rout? I take "toward" to mean "reducing distance in hexes", BTW.
Were that the case (and I'm not arguing against by any means), the OP example would only have 2 choices, K2 or P5. Both are at 4MF by most direct route. P5 is ignorable but selectable. In this case, N0 and P1 could not be valid destinations, as they are at 5MF.
A10.51.......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
News to me.....but there it is.A10.5 & A10.51
Using the A10.531 Example, assume there is a German unit in J2 with the broken Russian unit. Also assume there is no German
unit in K4. It is the start of that Russian's unit rout. When determining the unit's rout destination (nearest in MF non-ignorable
woods/building, determined at start of its RtPh), MUST building K2 be the initially declared rout destination (nearest nonignorable
woods/building at 2MF away), even though the unit may not end its RtPh there due to the KEU in J2? Basically, when
determining a valid rout destination at the start of a units rout (A10.51), does a Known enemy unit IN the same Location as the
broken unit at the start of the RtPh automatically preclude any ADJACENT woods/building from being a valid rout target, since
the broken unit may not END a RtPh there (A10.51)?
A. K2 must be declared initially; upon reaching K2, the router must re-figure his destination.
Yes, as I understand it K4,Not sure if I understand how you differentiate between legality of rout path and legality of move here. Do you mean that for determining valid rout destination the MF is governed by shortest possible MF regardless of presence of enemy, so long any prospective rout (even over multiple RtPh) does not violate moving "towards" a KEU at any point in the rout? I take "toward" to mean "reducing distance in hexes", BTW.
Were that the case (and I'm not arguing against by any means), the OP example would only have 2 choices, K2 or P5. Both are at 4MF by most direct route. P5 is ignorable but selectable. In this case, N0 and P1 could not be valid destinations, as they are at 5MF.
But that is specific to the situation where the routing unit is in the same hex as an enemy unit is it not?Interesting Q&A seems to indicate that validity/legality of a rout path/target do not enter into the determination of the formal rout target:
News to me.....but there it is.