Rout Question

Phil_Draper

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
127
Reaction score
34
Location
Stavanger, Norway
Country
llNorway
I don’t see a contradiction. I think that the process for a broken unit forced to rout due to being ADJACENT to an enemy unit is as follows:

1. Determine the nearest legal rout destinations
2 Determine whether it is possible to reach any of these destinations without being subject to interdiction or forced to low crawl. Potential interdictors include unconcealed units that are not known to the broken unit at the start of its rout phase. If no such rout path exists, the broken unit surrenders. If there is a legal rout path to one or more of the potential destinations that is not subject to interdiction, the broken unit can go to any of the potential destinations even if it incurs interdiction in the process.
3. Having determined its destination, the broken unit routs towards it. If, during the rout or after arrival at the rout destination, a previously unknown enemy unit makes it illegal to continue its rout, or to remain there after arrival, a new rout destination has to be chosen and the same process is followed as before, except that low crawl is no longer an option.
Which I agree with, but which is not supported by the answer provided by Perry's Q&A. Your point 3 essentially agrees with my belief that when a new rout path is required, the adjacency to a KEU and any potential interdiction along the new rout path (not just in the first hex along the new path) is reassessed. In my example above, as you said the unit surrenders in H8. If you follow Jim's interpretation the new rout path has nothing to do with the initial one and that is the only rout path that is considered for surrender purposes. The unit continues to rout through H7, is interdicted and may make it to H6. That is the contradiction.
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Which I agree with, but which is not supported by the answer provided by Perry's Q&A. Your point 3 essentially agrees with my belief that when a new rout path is required, the adjacency to a KEU and any potential interdiction along the new rout path (not just in the first hex along the new path) is reassessed. In my example above, as you said the unit surrenders in H8. If you follow Jim's interpretation the new rout path has nothing to do with the initial one and that is the only rout path that is considered for surrender purposes. The unit continues to rout through H7, is interdicted and may make it to H6. That is the contradiction.
I don't think that Jim is saying that. In the situation that he describes in his blog, if the broken unit took into consideration what would happen after it was unable to reach its original destination, it would have to surrender. In light of the Q&A however, it does not have to look this far ahead for surrender purposes. As long as it thinks that it has a legal rout path without interdiction, it can proceed towards its initial destination even though the omniscient player knows that it will have to choose a new route when the original one is thwarted by the hitherto unknown unit in AA4. I don't think that Jim is suggesting that it might not have to surrender in the kind of situation that you have suggested but I am happy to ask him to clarify if you like.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
It depends on what Perry meant by "initial". Is it the rout to a legal destination, with all the changes for new KEU, or not?
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
He could LC to I8 as he's not using it to avoid interdiction, he just doesn't want to become ADJACENT to the unit in G9 by entering H8 (where he is not subject to interdiction but is ADJACENT). At least in I8 he has a chance of a really good Self Rally DR.
"Avoiding Interdiction" is not in the rule. The rule says "subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl". For any reason. The unit in this case can only rout by being subject to Interdiction or by using Low Crawl. It doesn't matter that the unis is using LC to avoid being eliminated for FTR.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
The unit routs to the woods.. It reaches it's destination.

Then has to continue from there and can't.
Surrenders to a unit on the left side depending on which woods he routs to.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
As another example, I think this from bishops perspective will destroy the surrender rule.
Given bishops example the unit can get away.
I asked this same question 2yrs ago. Perry responds with initial hex lingo, otherwise you can get out of most sticky situations as we've covered 1000 times in tactical Tuesday.
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
He can't LC as that would be the ONLY way he survives. Since he's ADJ , surrenders. The surrender here is from the INITIAL rout path. The surrender rule don't say anything about subsequent rout paths, you don't reset your MF, you are still routing. I thought the change that bishop's article suggests shouldn't be legal. It breaks the rout rules entirely, as you can avoid surrender almost completely. The are NO destinations that he can go to avoiding this, thus surrenders, had there been ONE (first level is usually the out here) then the redirect would be ok, but there aren't any. Bishops example has him going to a routable location if he chose a certain path legally. The example shows a different path ( a similar question I posted months ago, Doug is familiar with it). The example here doesn't show any legal path.

Two different issues faced here.
One legal (Bishop ex)
One not legal (I e. No safe place initially)
 

Doug Leslie

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,620
Reaction score
1,549
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
He can't LC as that would be the ONLY way he survives. Since he's ADJ , surrenders. The surrender here is from the INITIAL rout path. The surrender rule don't say anything about subsequent rout paths, you don't reset your MF, you are still routing. I thought the change that bishop's article suggests shouldn't be legal. It breaks the rout rules entirely, as you can avoid surrender almost completely. The are NO destinations that he can go to avoiding this, thus surrenders, had there been ONE (first level is usually the out here) then the redirect would be ok, but there aren't any. Bishops example has him going to a routable location if he chose a certain path legally. The example shows a different path ( a similar question I posted months ago, Doug is familiar with it). The example here doesn't show any legal path.

Two different issues faced here.
One legal (Bishop ex)
One not legal (I e. No safe place initially)
The Q&A, once officially posted, is going to change how many of us interpreted the surrender rule. I think that the new “official” interpretation is a welcome simplification.
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
The Q&A, once officially posted, is going to change how many of us interpreted the surrender rule. I think that the new “official” interpretation is a welcome simplification.
That's how I'm going to play it too. The unit's initial rout is to the first legal destination it reaches, with any changes due to new KEU. If the player continues routing after that, that's not the initial rout path.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
"Q&A: A20.21 When determining whether a broken unit would surrender to an ADJACENT unit, is the entire rout path examined for Interdiction or simply the first hex away from the enemy unit to which it is ADJACENT? That is, the first hex may be non-Open Ground but the second or third hex on the path to the target woods/building is Open Ground and therefore the unit would be Interdicted at that point during the rout.
A. The entire rout path."

Question:What does "entire rout path" refer to in the Q&A cited?

A:The entire initial rout path. ....Perry MMP
I have raised the question with MMP.....in context with the original/Jim's Q&A "initial" was probably a correct wording, it was only later that I realized that I thought "current" would be a better wording....
MMP has amended the initial answer: "A. The entire current rout path."

 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
Perry per Klas said:
A:The entire current rout path. ....Perry MMP
Which is consistent w/the existing text,
eASLRB A20.21 said:
20.21 RtPh: Any broken Infantry unit during its RtPh that is both ADJACENT to Known, Good Order, armed enemy Infantry/Cavalry and unable to rout away from it or only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl (regardless of how it actually routs or if the possible unconcealed Interdictor is Known to it), will surrender to that enemy unit as its prisoner instead...
I read this clarification as still taking into consideration game states out of LOS of the routing unit at time of rout target determination (or re-determination).

So, if the omniscient players see there'll be unavoidable Interdiction on the way to the current rout target, the broken unit, if ADJACENT to a Prisoner-accepting KEU at time of current rout target determination, will Surrender instead of routing (and "learning" first-hand the inevitable Interdiction hex later).

Example:
21263
Assume: an unconcealed potential Interdictor in G6 w/LOS to both I8 & I9 and (owing to the H6 building) no J8<=>G6 LOS [I don't know if that's so on the actual board, but let's assume so]

Then it follows that: the broken unit Surrenders to the K9 unit because the broken unit would discover that it has no Interdiction-free path (to anywhere) w/out use of Low Crawl, even though the broken unit cannot "see" that at time of rout path determination.

Agreed?
 

Desicat

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
78
Reaction score
45
Location
MN
Country
llUnited States
Which is consistent w/the existing text,

I read this clarification as still taking into consideration game states out of LOS of the routing unit at time of rout target determination (or re-determination).

So, if the omniscient players see there'll be unavoidable Interdiction on the way to the current rout target, the broken unit, if ADJACENT to a Prisoner-accepting KEU at time of current rout target determination, will Surrender instead of routing (and "learning" first-hand the inevitable Interdiction hex later).

Example:
View attachment 21263
Assume: an unconcealed potential Interdictor in G6 w/LOS to both I8 & I9 and (owing to the H6 building) no J8<=>G6 LOS [I don't know if that's so on the actual board, but let's assume so]

Then it follows that: the broken unit Surrenders to the K9 unit because the broken unit would discover that it has no Interdiction-free path (to anywhere) w/out use of Low Crawl, even though the broken unit cannot "see" that at time of rout path determination.

Agreed?
Where did the American unit in G6 come from? That unit was not in the original posters picture (even if it is HIP).
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,779
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Example:
View attachment 21263
Assume: an unconcealed potential Interdictor in G6 w/LOS to both I8 & I9 and (owing to the H6 building) no J8<=>G6 LOS [I don't know if that's so on the actual board, but let's assume so]

Then it follows that: the broken unit Surrenders to the K9 unit because the broken unit would discover that it has no Interdiction-free path (to anywhere) w/out use of Low Crawl, even though the broken unit cannot "see" that at time of rout path determination.

Agreed?
In this example with an Interdictor in G6 that can Interdict the "current" rout path to H8 and H9 - the unit has to Surrender to K9. But there are no re-determination of rout paths in this example.
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
Where did the American unit in G6 come from? That unit was not in the original posters picture (even if it is HIP).
True. I added that unit to the example to call attention (above) to an A20.21 nuance maybe not addressed in the Comprehensive Rout Example.
In this example with an Interdictor in G6 that can Interdict the "current" rout path to H8 and H9 - the unit has to Surrender to K9. But there are no re-determination of rout paths in this example.
True. But if a player
errantly believed the "unseeing" broken unit can declare H9 a rout target,
enter I9, "see" the G6 interdictor,
survive interdiction then
ignore H9 (as no further from G6) and then
switch current rout target to J10, say,
that would be errant play I have witnessed before.

So, kinda related and worth noting, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Phil_Draper

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
127
Reaction score
34
Location
Stavanger, Norway
Country
llNorway
Which is consistent w/the existing text,

I read this clarification as still taking into consideration game states out of LOS of the routing unit at time of rout target determination (or re-determination).

So, if the omniscient players see there'll be unavoidable Interdiction on the way to the current rout target, the broken unit, if ADJACENT to a Prisoner-accepting KEU at time of current rout target determination, will Surrender instead of routing (and "learning" first-hand the inevitable Interdiction hex later).

Example:
View attachment 21263
Assume: an unconcealed potential Interdictor in G6 w/LOS to both I8 & I9 and (owing to the H6 building) no J8<=>G6 LOS [I don't know if that's so on the actual board, but let's assume so]

Then it follows that: the broken unit Surrenders to the K9 unit because the broken unit would discover that it has no Interdiction-free path (to anywhere) w/out use of Low Crawl, even though the broken unit cannot "see" that at time of rout path determination.

Agreed?
Yes.

I believe a Q&A regarding whether the unit surrenders without the presence of this unit (G6) may be helpful. Scott Romanowski's view that as the unit cannot legally rout to H8 and H9 due to the presence of the out of LOS units in G9 and G10, or must Low Crawl means it must surrender immediately is worthy of consideration.

I believe other experts (Klas) and your humble author (me) are of the opinion that the unit can legally rout to H8 and H9, it just cannot stay there when it gets there (and due to the new Q&A clarification would surrender in both hexes if NQ is not in effect). The fact that it could choose these destinations (and rout free of interdiction as the G6 unit was not present in the original example) means that it could legally elect to Low Crawl to I8 or I9 and not surrender immediately to the unit in K9.
 
Last edited:

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
626
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
True. I added that unit to the example to call attention (above) to an A20.21 nuance maybe not addressed in the Comprehensive Rout Example.

True. But if a player
errantly believed the "unseeing" broken unit can declare H9 a rout target,
enter I9, "see" the G6 interdictor,
survive interdiction then
ignore H9 (as no further from G6) and then
switch current rout target to J10, say,
that would be errant play I have witnessed before.

So, kinda related and worth noting, IMO.
Exactly, People that don't apply the surrender rule nor rout properly.
It's common..FAR too common a misplay.

They have to take the path into consideration. Since he can't find a legal path exclusive of LC or Interdiction, he surrenders to the First ADJ unit...in this case from his starting point.

He can't LC in the previous examples of the units behind the woods as he still has to reach his destination where he surrenders to a DIFFERENT unit.

I don't like the perceived change that he surrenders to the first unit as the Broken unit HAS reached it's destination free of LC and Interdiction...yet he NOW has to reconfigure the path...Since it can't it's now ADJ to a different unit and surrenders to it.

i.e. You have to consider the entire path otherwise you can pretty much rout away from anyone...or inadvertently surrender to the first unit...But most players just FTR the unit honestly.
 

Wayne

Doing Plenty, Kinda Slow
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
989
Location
Snowiest place in VA
Country
llUnited States
He can't LC in the previous examples of the units behind the woods as he still has to reach his destination where he surrenders to a DIFFERENT unit.
Maybe I misread Stewart, but (like Phil_Draper said up-thread) I belive the brokies in the OP example =can= use Low Crawl to avoid immediate surrender.

Here again is the OP graphic:
21320
eASLRB A10.51 said:
... At the start of its RtPh, a routing unit must designate its destination and must attempt to reach it during that RtPh [EXC: if using Low Crawl]. ...
eASLRB said:
10.52 LOW CRAWL: Low Crawl is a rout of one Location which requires the entire MF allotment of the routing unit (but is still considered a form of Assault Movement should the routing unit enter a FFE Blast Area). A routing unit using Low Crawl cannot be Interdicted. Low Crawl cannot be used to enter Marsh or a Water Obstacle, or in any stream unless dry. Low Crawl cannot be used to exit an enemy-occupied Location [EXC: Night (E1.54)]. All other Rout provisions apply unchanged to Low Crawl, e.g., rout must still be towards the nearest woods/building Location within 6 MF.
Among the All other Rout provisions is the option of using Low Crawl so as to limit the Rout to one hex.*

*[Surrender troubles aside, there are instances in play when a Low Crawl may be preferable to a "normal rout" merely to keep a brokie "near the front." Trading a more difficult future Rally DR for a better Good Order position should the brokie make that more-difficult Rally DR is a risk sometimes worth considering in game play.]

The omniscient player knows that no Known unit can Interdict I9, meaning
Surrender to the K9 unit isn't required (IMO).
The omniscient player must designate a Rout Target of H8 or H9 (consequence of A10.51)
but knows too that a normal Rout to H8 or H9 and actually getting there will result in Surrender to a G9 or G10 unit.

A10.52 allows and kinda focuses on Low Crawl as a means of avoiding Interdiction but also allows Low Crawl =period=, provided All other Rout provisions are met.

Re the player seeking to dodge Surrender in this example, designating the Rout target determines the Rout direction, but the rules do not compel a "normal rout" if there is an allowable Low Crawl option and (in this case) there is, IMO.

Phil_Draper said:
I believe a Q&A regarding whether the unit surrenders without the presence of this unit (G6) may be helpful. Scott Romanowski's view that as the unit cannot legally rout to H8 and H9 due to the presence of the out of LOS units in G9 and G10, or must Low Crawl means it must surrender immediately is worthy of consideration.
Re the OP example, I'm believing rules I've cited in this post =do= allow a Low Crawl to I9, say, but
when not all of our several Mavens are in accord, then
Yes, a Q&A could show that my belief is wrong.

Maybe someone disagreeing w/my belief will make the submission (if still believing I've misread the rules).
 
Top