Rout Path

[Jwil2020]

I'm looking through Bill Kohler's "Rout Path Flow Chart."
rout-flowchart.pdf (asl-players.net)

On page three under "Path" he has this note:
"The routing unit must move toward its destination Location. At no point may the routing unit increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination.

Yet, A10.51 Direction has the line:
"As long as it reaches that hex (its rout destination) during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route..."

Until I saw Bill's flow chart note, I had assumed the routing unit was free to take a more circuitous route (perhaps through non-interdiction terrain), as long as it arrived at its destination within the 6MF.

Is the flow chart in error, or am I missing something?

 

[semenza]

You can take a path that is not the shortest ( in MF ) and still not increase the number of hexes between itself and it's destination.

Seth

 

[Jwil2020]

Thanks. As usual, it was something obvious.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I checked the endnotes for that flowchart, but there was no reference for the "cannot increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination" part. I can't find that in the rules either; because of terrain there might be cases like the below. The broken American 666 in 9B4 must rout since it's in OG in Normal Range of a KEU, and its destination must be B6. I has a valid, interdiction-free, 5MF-long rout path C4-C5-C6 (of B5)-B6. But it must first rout through C4, increasing the range in hexes to B6.
Could someone point me to the rule that prohibits increasing the distance in hexes to the destination please?

 

[Jwil2020]

I checked the endnotes for that flowchart, but there was no reference for the "cannot increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination" part. I can't find that in the rules either;

I had the same thought. The Flow Chart specifically says the routing unit "cannot increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination" yet 10.51 (nor anywhere else that I could find) does not use that specific wording. Instead, it says: "As long as it reaches that hex (its rout destination) during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route...." and the next clause adds: "...but as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise, it may enter a shellhole/entrenchment/pillbox to avoid interdiction even if it can no longer reach that woods/building hex in a single RtPh."

Although I cannot find a Q&A which directly addresses this point, I can only assume that putting those two clauses together defines "shortest route" as "shortest path in MF". Which would mean the FC note is correct.

However, your illustration demonstrates a case where it appears the only way the routing 6-6-6 can reach its destination is to (at first) move away from that destination hex.

I await the ruling from the greybeards.

 

[Doug Leslie]

There is this Q&A:

A10.51 If a DM broken unit that must rout is within six MF of the nearest woods/building, must it attempt to reach the woods/building in a single RtPh?

A. Yes, unless it uses Low Crawl, but it need not take the shortest route (in hexes/MF) to do so. Even if it uses Low Crawl, however, it must still do so toward that woods/building (i.e., at no time may it increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of the phase). [An92; An95w; An96; Mw]

There was discussion of rout paths generally on this thread last year.

RUN FORREST RUN | GameSquad Forums

My question to Perry has remained unanswered to date.

 

[Jwil2020]

I could not find that Q&A from the latest file posted by Klas, but perhaps I just missed it. Your reference certainly makes clear "the-may-not-increase-range" stipulation. Am I correct that three of the cited references are from Annuals of the mid 90s? One would think that important wording would have been included in the 2nd Edition RB update.

But hey, all I want to know is what the proper interpretation is. And if that's the rule, that's the rule.

Thanks.

 

[Wayne]

There is this Q&A:

A10.51 If a DM broken unit that must rout is within six MF of the nearest woods/building, must it attempt to reach the woods/building in a single RtPh?

A. Yes, unless it uses Low Crawl, but it need not take the shortest route (in hexes/MF) to do so. Even if it uses Low Crawl, however, it must still do so toward that woods/building (i.e., at no time may it increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of the phase). [An92; An95w; An96; Mw]

I find that Q&A, but only in the 1eASLRB Q&A [ref ASL_QA_Total-v29.pdf PDF page 278] which has been officially deprecated.

So, Bill Kohler's "Rout Path Flow Chart" (thank you, Bill) is IMO 1eASLRB-compliant, but not 2eASLRB-correct re this detail.

I believe Scott's comment and example above better-expresses the state of the rule this year 2022.

[This seems another of (almost) many instances where 2eASLRB rules have invalidated 1eASLRB Q&A so be cautious when referring to such.]

 

[DVexile]

In a previous thread this came up and at least one person made the point that the subsequent sentence about moving toward is only meant to apply to Low Crawl. That makes sense because otherwise you could just Low Crawl wherever you wanted and say "well, I'm going to get to the destination eventually". But for non-LC there is the already the restriction that you must get there in that RtPh which restricts how far you could wander thus no need to restrict only movement towards.

If we interpret it as "you must always move towards in all cases" then Scott's example is a failure to route totally undocumented in the rule book.

The key point in the reading of the answer is not to read the second sentence without the context of the first. The first sentence says you've got to finish in one RtPh unless you Low Crawl. The second is trying to say and if you low crawl then you must go towards. The use of word "even" is a bit ambiguous as it is open to interpretation as "and if" or "no matter if". The very fact it bothers to say "Even if it uses low crawl" implies the clause only applies to Low Crawl since otherwise it would just say "In all cases".

Anywho, yet another case of those wonderful route rules!

EDIT: And Wayne's excellent point about the obsolescence of the Q&A...

 

[semenza]

You can take a path that is not the shortest ( in MF ) and still not increase the number of hexes between itself and it's destination.

Seth

Just a note on my answer ....................... I did not check the rules, I was only pointing out that the situation was possible.

Seth

 

[Larry]

Even if it uses Low Crawl, however, it must still do so toward that woods/building (i.e., at no time may it increase the hex range between itself and that woods/building, and must end that RtPh closer to it than it was at the start of the phase). [An92; An95w; An96; Mw] .

The introductory clause sets the context ... Low Crawl. If using Low Crawl, it cannot get further away. If it does not use low crawl, it must reach the destination on this rout phase.

In Scott's example, the broken unit could not LC to C4. It could rout to C4 but must reach B6.

 

[Stewart]

Could someone point me to the rule that prohibits increasing the distance in hexes to the destination please?

There isn't any. It's a poor generalization. Although being a poor generalization, with all the illegal routs players perform frequently, it's kind of a necessary evil to "remind them of the rules" even though it isn't one.

 

[Stewart]

[This seems another of (almost) many instances where 2eASLRB rules have invalidated 1eASLRB Q&A so be cautious when referring to such.]

yeah, I was looking in the Q&A and didn't see the "answer date" on them.
Not sure if the OLD have been removed from the "revised"
I'm sure some have but others haven't.
I haven't seen any distinction on the edition.

I came across a similar occurrence in another system, but they track their revisions/questions a bit more effectively.

 

[Eagle4ty]

The introductory clause sets the context ... Low Crawl. If using Low Crawl, it cannot get further away. If it does not use low crawl, it must reach the destination on this rout phase.

In Scott's example, the broken unit could not LC to C4. It could rout to C4 but must reach B6.

I believe you meant to say it must be able to reach its destination in this rout phase. There is no requirement is must reach its destination in a single RtPh.

 

[Larry]

In this case, there is eligible terrain within 6 MF. Whatever path it takes, it must reach that destination because it cannot legally low crawl.

 

[Jwil2020]

So, back to my original question.
Setting LC aside for the moment, am I wrong to interpret A10.51 as permitting (or at least not prohibiting) a routing unit to take a more circuitous route to its destination hex as long as it arrives at the end of the RtPh, even if that means temporarily increasing the distance between its starting hex and destination?

 

[EagleIV]

So, back to my original question.
Setting LC aside for the moment, am I wrong to interpret A10.51 as permitting (or at least not prohibiting) a routing unit to take a more circuitous route to its destination hex as long as it arrives at the end of the RtPh, even if that means temporarily increasing the distance between its starting hex and destination?

Correct, as long as your initial intend path will get you to your rout destination, you can take any path you want. Of course if while routing a HIP/concealed/Unknown unit becomes Known you may have to change your rout path/destination. Yes scouting in this way is legal.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Correct, as long as your initial intend path will get you to your rout destination, you can take any path you want. Of course if while routing a HIP/concealed/Unknown unit becomes Known you may have to change your rout path/destination. Yes scouting in this way is legal.

That was the point at issue in the thread to which I linked earlier. The wording of A10.51, as I read it, is pretty definitive.

"As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route, but as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise, it may enter a shellhole/entrenchment/pillbox to avoid Interdiction even if it can no longer reach that woods/building hex in a single RtPh."

I read this to mean that the omniscient player cannot choose a circuitous route if he knows that doing so will bring a non-concealed enemy unit into LOS of the routing unit which will have the effect of allowing it to choose a different destination.

 

[Jwil2020]

Correct, as long as your initial intend path will get you to your rout destination, you can take any path you want. Of course if while routing a HIP/concealed/Unknown unit becomes Known you may have to change your rout path/destination. Yes scouting in this way is legal.

Thanks. This was my view until I came across Bill Kohler's Rout FC (dated from 2017 IIRC), which made me doubt my convictions.

What got me looking into the dreaded rout rules once again was that a similar situation came up at the Human Wave Tourney this weekend. A player wanted to rout to the destination hex by using a longer (I believe in MF) route to get there so as to avoid interdiction the "shorter route" would have caused. His opponent was of the opinion the unit had to suffer interdiction, because it had to take the shorter route.

I was surprised that this was even a question, as I felt fairly certain the rules permitted taking the alternate route and that this was "settled law." Surprisingly, based on this thread, and the pros and cons presented in that older thread that Doug linked (thanks for doing that Doug), it would seem it is not.

FWIW: I see from reading through that old thread that the concept of the "omniscient player" seems to some to be a determining factor. IMO, in this instance, the player has to turn off his omniscient mode and see things from the perspective of the routing unit which has no clue as to what lies ahead. If not, how does one interpret: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new designation is re-figured from that point."

The reconfiguring of the rout takes place from that point after the hapless brokie (not the all-seeing, all-knowing player) discovers the "newly-Known enemy unit."

Lastly, is there a consensus that the old Q&A cited above is no longer relevant seeing that the phrasing: "At no point may the routing unit increase the number of hexes between itself and its destination," never made it into the 2nd Ed. ASLRB?

 

[fanatic+1]

In the example, the shortest route in hexes is not traversable (i.e. cliff) so the routing unit is explicitly allowed to ignore that route and go another way, including low crawl. See A10.51.