Rout Question

[bendizoid]

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:
View attachment 21320



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.



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).

I agree, the squad could low crawl to I8 or I9.

 

[Doug Leslie]

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:
View attachment 21320



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.



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).

Before the recently posted Q&A, many players (myself included), would have played it that the brokie has to surrender because it cannot rout away without using low crawl to avoid interdiction. That was based on examining the whole rout route. The Q&A has made it clear that it is only the current destination that has to be considered, as opposed to the whole route after it turns out to be unavailable as a final destination. Because it can low crawl towards the current destination without interdiction, the Q&A now means that it can avoid surrender.

 

[SSlunt]

The Broken unit cannot use LC in this case

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,

In this case you know that you will be interdicted and the only way to avoid this is LC so the Brokie Surrenders. So many people do not like that fact that they can't move to a location of their own choosing. I have no problem having the adjacent unit that ultimately forces the surrender to be the one that accepts the prisoners.

ADJACENT as always is important

 

[Wayne]

Given that there is no Interdiction in a first hex to which it could Rout, the unit =can= Rout w/out Surrender to the ADJACENT unit - though in this case, that =would= result in a Surrender to a different unit.

Given that the unit can Rout, can it choose to Rout via Low Crawl, give that there is no required Surrender to the ADJACENT and no Interdiction in the hex to which it would crawl?

I think Yes (and have shown rules support up-thread), but I do see the plausible argument for No.

Shrug.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

As I've said before, A20.21 says if the unit can only rout by using LC -- maybe to avoid ending its RtPh ADJACENT to a unit that would eliminate it for FTR -- then it must surrender. It doesn't say "resorting LC to avoid Interdiction", it says "resorting to LC".
Imagine that the broken unit is a wounded leader with only 3 MF.

Now the unit can rout to H8 and be eliminated for FTR, or rout to H9 and be eliminated for FTR, or LC to I8 or I9. Since it can only rout by resorting to LC, it surrenders.

 

[Doug Leslie]

As I've said before, A20.21 says if the unit can only rout by using LC -- maybe to avoid ending its RtPh ADJACENT to a unit that would eliminate it for FTR -- then it must surrender. It doesn't say "resorting LC to avoid Interdiction", it says "resorting to LC".
Imagine that the broken unit is a wounded leader with only 3 MF.
View attachment 21327
Now the unit can rout to H8 and be eliminated for FTR, or rout to H9 and be eliminated for FTR, or LC to I8 or I9. Since it can only rout by resorting to LC, it surrenders.

My reading of the Q&A is that it can LC to I8/I9. It can reach H8/H9 without interdiction and those are its potential “current“ destinations. What happens after that is ignored for surrender purposes.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I agree with Scott.
Player omniscience kicks in.
H8/H9 could be taken into consideration as a rout destination if G9/G10 Americans were concealed and the German player didn't know if they were dummies.

 

[Stewart]

My reading of the Q&A is that it can LC to I8/I9. It can reach H8/H9 without interdiction and those are its potential “current“ destinations. What happens after that is ignored for surrender purposes.

Then the LC condition is being ignored from the Surrender rules.
Which is, of course, not the rule.

IF you can ONLY LC to not FTR, then you must surrender...

IF you can make it to your destination and not die as a result of it..THEN you may LC.,

 

[Doug Leslie]

Then the LC condition is being ignored from the Surrender rules.
Which is, of course, not the rule.

IF you can ONLY LC to not FTR, then you must surrender...

IF you can make it to your destination and not die as a result of it..THEN you may LC.,

If an official Q&A says that something is the rule, does it not lead to anarchy if it is disregarded?

 

[SSlunt]

If an official Q&A says that something is the rule, does it not lead to anarchy if it is disregarded?

It is not really OFFICIAL until it is in the rule book and then it is a RULE.
Q&A's tend to be clarifications.
Now that the RB is in the digital world changes to the RB should be much easier

 

[Wayne]

As I've said before, A20.21 says if the unit can only rout by using LC -- maybe to avoid ending its RtPh ADJACENT to a unit that would eliminate it for FTR -- then it must surrender. It doesn't say "resorting LC to avoid Interdiction", it says "resorting to LC".

Though I like the simplicity of this interpretation, I disagree. The (narrow) context is re Interdiction specifically, IMO. Claiming (for unmentioned reasons) a required Surrender in the OP example is a stretch not supported by the rule as writ, IMO.

That 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
{to avoid said Interdiction} resorting to Low Crawl
(regardless of
how it actually routs {i.e., normally or via Low Crawl} or
if the possible unconcealed Interdictor is Known to it),
{then and only then it} will surrender to that enemy unit as its prisoner instead...

our difficulty is that this terse sentence above is kind of a linguistic mess. Some line breaks and {added text} help, I think, so I add both (though the {text adds} merely explain what I deem implicit and thus are not actually necessary nor rule-changing, IMO).

Assuming my read of the terse sentence is correct then, re the OP example, all of the three tests in red above are False, meaning there is no required Surrender.

Absent a requirement to Surrender, the OP example brokie may Rout normally.
Normal Rout includes the option to elect for Low Crawl -- doing so in this case is not resorting to Low Crawl to avoid Interdiction.

Upshot: w/out a rule update or suitable Q&A then, re the OP example, I see the Low Crawl to I8 or I9 as Allowed under the rules at this date: the brokie is not required to Surrender so may Rout and may choose Low Crawl as its Rout mechanic.

=-=-=

[Referring back to the ASLRBv1 A20.21 verbiage kinda supports my belief -- I'm not convinced that changes since then were intended to up the scope of the ASLRBv1 implicit narrow context of "resorting" referring only to use of Low Crawl to negate Interdiction (I could be wrong but that'd be a somewhat massive change of scope so I think not).]

 

[Phil_Draper]

As I've said before, A20.21 says if the unit can only rout by using LC -- maybe to avoid ending its RtPh ADJACENT to a unit that would eliminate it for FTR -- then it must surrender. It doesn't say "resorting LC to avoid Interdiction", it says "resorting to LC".
Imagine that the broken unit is a wounded leader with only 3 MF.
View attachment 21327
Now the unit can rout to H8 and be eliminated for FTR, or rout to H9 and be eliminated for FTR, or LC to I8 or I9. Since it can only rout by resorting to LC, it surrenders.

And the counter argument to this is, that is not what A20.21 says. It says "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."

It doesn't say unable to remain in its target rout location when it reaches it, or unable to successfully complete its rout route. And unlike the interdiction portion of the rule does not talk about assessing the complete path for out of LOS KEU that may affect that rout.

So in the original example and your one for the wounded SMC above the argument is the same. The units are able to rout away from the adjacent unit. They are just subject to negative effects when they arrive. Given that they have that rout option and the path is free from interdiction they may chose to rout to H8 or H9 and therefore may elect to LC.

I am agnostic on the answer. I don't care which way this ends up being resolved, I see strong arguments on both sides. If Scott Romanowski and Bob Bendis, two ASL players that I have the utmost respect for can come down on different sides of this discussion, then, to coin a phrase, we have a problem.

Which is why I believe a Q&A to clarify the intent of this rule would be worthwhile.

 

[MajorDomo]

I think that low crawl should be allowed.

There is a legal, non- interdicted rout path to H8.

The rules do not allow the omnipotent future results based upon unknown units to be considered when selecting an initial rout target location.

It appears to me that Perry has endorsed this concept.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction or {to avoid said Interdiction} resorting to Low Crawl

When quoting rules please do not add your own words to support your own interpretation in the quote. The words I indicated do not appear in the ASLRB!

 

[Phil_Draper]

When quoting rules please do not add your own words to support your own interpretation in the quote. The words I indicated do not appear in the ASLRB!

Scott, to be fair Wayne was very clear in his post that he was merely trying to explain what he deemed implicit in the rules.

 

[Phil_Draper]

Out of interest how does the situation change if the two units on the G hex row are concealed (or dummies)?

The broken unit has the same rout options, correct?

The units are still not KEU so from the routers perspective nothing changes when determining its rout path. Obviously the situation when it arrives is different, but I believe in this situation no one would argue it could not elect to LC along a rout path to H8 or H9, correct?

 

[Robin Reeve]

View attachment 21355

Out of interest how does the situation change if the two units on the G hex row are concealed (or dummies)?

The broken unit has the same rout options, correct?

The units are still not KEU so from the routers perspective nothing changes when determining its rout path. Obviously the situation when it arrives is different, but I believe in this situation no one would argue it could not elect to LC along a rout path to H8 or H9, correct?

That was my reasoning some posts above.
The omniscient player cannot tell if the concealed units are real, so he cannot say if interdiction will occur or not.

 

[Phil_Draper]

That was my reasoning some posts above.
The omniscient player cannot tell if the concealed units are real, so he cannot say if interdiction will occur or not.

But at this stage we are not addressing any question of interdiction. We are simply trying to decide if the units can legally select H8 or H9 as legal rout targets and if so legally Low Crawl to I8 or I9 on their way to those targets.

 

[Philippe D.]

View attachment 21355

Out of interest how does the situation change if the two units on the G hex row are concealed (or dummies)?

If they are concealed (and remain so), the broken squad can legally end its rout in H8 or H9, so it most definitely has a legal rout path that doesn't involve Interdiction or Low Crawl. Whether that's different from the case where they are not concealed remains to be clarified - or at least, it seems to be the crux of the matter.

 

[bendizoid]

As I've said before, A20.21 says if the unit can only rout by using LC -- maybe to avoid ending its RtPh ADJACENT to a unit that would eliminate it for FTR -- then it must surrender. It doesn't say "resorting LC to avoid Interdiction", it says "resorting to LC".
Imagine that the broken unit is a wounded leader with only 3 MF.
View attachment 21327
Now the unit can rout to H8 and be eliminated for FTR, or rout to H9 and be eliminated for FTR, or LC to I8 or I9. Since it can only rout by resorting to LC, it surrenders.

But it doesn’t have to resort to LC, it could rout to the woods.

But at this stage we are not addressing any question of interdiction. We are simply trying to decide if the units can legally select H8 or H9 as legal rout targets and if so legally Low Crawl to I8 or I9 on their way to those targets.

This is my take on the situation. Thank you for writing it carefully. The ‘or resorting to Low Crawl’ phrase is to avoid the said interdiction in the previous phrase.

PS when I read your kind thoughts on me and Scott my brain released a small amount of dopamine giving me the warm fuzzies.