Routing, the mother of all rules arguments

Discussion in 'ASL Rules & Errata' started by Will Fleming, Oct 27, 2016.

  1. Will Fleming

    Will Fleming Active Member

    Apr 22, 2003
    Singapore
    No buildings have upper levels and rowhouse bars are not in effect. FYI, the scenario is "Crossfire".

    The German unit in W8 can choose the following as legal rout destinations: V10, X10, X8. Can he choose Z7?

    i.e. Going to Z7 would cost 4MF along a rout path he couldn't take, but it is 4MF away.

    10.51 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. A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, unless in doing so it is leaving that enemy unit's Location. Otherwise, a routing unit may move toward an enemy unit. 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 (even if overstacked) 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.). 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. A routing unit can rout into/out of/within a known minefield or FFE at its option, but is not forced to do so merely to reach the closest woods/building hex. 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]. If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point. Upon reaching a building/woods Location not ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, a routing unit must stop and end its RtPh in that building/woods Location even if overstacked unless the unit can directly enter another building/woods Location in its next entered hex (not necessarily the same building or through a continuous woods hexside). [EXC: A broken unit in a building need not consider a hex of the same building in which it begins the RtPh as its closest building hex if it prefers to rout out of that building altogether and toward another building/woods hex—even if it must cross Open Ground or another building hex of the same building to do so. A routing unit may also ignore a building/woods hex if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex, even if it must rout through that now-ignored hex to reach its destination.]


    Screenshot from 2016-10-27 23-51-59.png
     
  2. General Mayhem

    General Mayhem Active Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Taunton
    No, it would not be abiding by the previous requirements.
     
  3. Russ Isaia

    Russ Isaia Member Silver Supporting Member

    292
    Oct 23, 2015
    Care to elaborate?
     
  4. General Mayhem

    General Mayhem Active Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Taunton
    I read the rule that you have to abide by all the stuff like not closing on enemy units when working out the nearest in MF destination. To rout to Z7 in 4 MF would mean entering hex X7 which is closing on KEU in X2 so that is not a legal rout destination as you have not abided by the previous requirements in working out your destination. The stuff about not necessarily using the shortest route refers to using Shellholes, entrenchments etc but still using the shortest path in MF. Going to Z7 via X8 is not using the shortest path in MF.
     
    Eagle4ty and klasmalmstrom like this.
  5. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    Hi Will,

    As I see it - Yes, it can rout to Z7. However, I am not sure about LOS, it probably gets interdicted in Y8 (LOS from V7 might clip the building in W8).

    Z7 is equally close as the unit's other rout options (4MF) except for X8 which he is not required to use as his destination (same building). All this makes Z7 good enough, despite the fact that he will probably travel via X8 taking a total of 5MFs.

    Otherwise, as far as I can tell, the only enemy unit with LOS to the router is V7, and the entire rout can be performed without routing adjacent or getting closer to that HS.
     
  6. zgrose

    zgrose Active Member

    Jun 13, 2004
    Pinole, CA
    You need not rout in the shortest path. I believe he is saying Z7 is 4MF away, so if he can reach it at the end of the RtPh, he can go to X8-Y8-Z7 for 5MF.

    The bolded line says that you can avoid the requirement to reach the rout destination if: you enter foxholes/entrenchments/pillbox AND you take the shortest path towards the route destination.
     
  7. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    I believe the confusion is caused by the bolded rule which could be read that the unit must use the fewest MF unless travelling via a foxhole/entrenchments/pillbox.

    However, I do not think this is true. I think the bolded sentence contains two separate rules (1. that you do not have to take the shortest path and 2. that you may utilize foxholes, etc). Indeed, the rules never say that you must take the shortest path - only that you must strive to reach the destination if possible.
     
  8. klasmalmstrom

    klasmalmstrom Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2003
    Sweden
    When determining the close rout target, I think you only consider legal rout paths.
     
  9. Russ Isaia

    Russ Isaia Member Silver Supporting Member

    292
    Oct 23, 2015
    The effect I suppose of -- "Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements, a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF . . ..). [Emphasis added]. One such requirement being -- don't come closer to KEUs.

    Which of course explains General Mayhem's remark -- "it would not be abiding by the previous requirements." Succinct, but too cryptic for this slowpoke.
     
  10. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    As far as I can tell, only the adjacent US HS is a KEU to the German router (W5 is a building hex, I think).

    As for Klas's clarification:

    When determining the close rout target, I think you only consider legal rout paths.​

    Is there a Q&A/Errata on this (or another rule to refer to)? I can accept your reading (especially if in common practice), but I don't know if I would necessarily draw that conclusion from 10.51:

    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...​
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
  11. General Mayhem

    General Mayhem Active Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Taunton
    No it is not legal it is closing on X2
     
    Justiciar likes this.
  12. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    Oops, you're probably right (hard to see)! I guess it does come down to the validity of Klas's clarification... he's usually right, but at the moment I am suspicious...;)

    I edited out my previous post to avoid confusion.
     
  13. Justiciar

    Justiciar Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2008
    Within Range
    I agree with the General...
     
  14. Philippe D.

    Philippe D. Active Member

    918
    Jul 1, 2016
    Bordeaux
    I would say Z7 is a legal destination, but if Klas can back up his assertion that you need to consider legal rout paths to determine your target, then if X7 is an illegal hex because of a LOS to a KEU, well, Z7 becomes an illegal destination (is X2 in LOS initially? I can't see what the terrain is, too many counters...).

    The way I understand the bold sentence is as saying two things: 1/ you don't need to take the shortest-in-MF route (you may use different hexes), and 2/ you may even end up not reaching your destination because you're spending MF entering/leaving safer pseudo-locations, but then you have to follow a shortest-sequence-of-hexes-in-MF (i.e., the hexes you enter along the way must be the hexes of a "shortest rout path".

    But yes, this section of the rules is probably one of the most poorly written. There may be worse, but this one comes into play in, basically, 99% of games played (there are a few armor-only, crews-cannot-abandon, no-crew-survival scenarios out there).
     
  15. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    Thanks for the support (even in when we're in question...)! "Poorly written" may be a bit mean. "Densely packed" is more like it. There's a lot in the routing rules that could have used some tidier organization!

    But I would be interested to know how prevalent Klas's view is...
     
  16. Philippe D.

    Philippe D. Active Member

    918
    Jul 1, 2016
    Bordeaux
    Hey, you're mean, too!

    OK, I'll settle for "easiest to play wrong, even after several readings"...
     
  17. Eagle4ty

    Eagle4ty Active Member

    Nov 7, 2007
    Eau Claire, Wi
    Too many arguments over this poorly worded rule, but the General is correct. One must consider the unit in X2 initially (LOS is wide open, check Bd10 of course). The only other way to get there without getting closer to X2 is to 1st rout to X8 which increases the Path in MF, thus disallowing the rout path.
     
  18. Binchois

    Binchois Too many words... Silver Supporting Member

    874
    Apr 11, 2016
    Michigan
    Forgive me - I didn't mean to be!:kiss:
     
  19. Justiciar

    Justiciar Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2008
    Within Range
    It might or might not be more helpful to see the rule reformatted like this. I added the green only as a minor edits.

    10.51 DIRECTION:

    1. 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];

    2. nor may it move toward such an enemy unit after leaving its LOS during that RtPh;

    3. nor, if ADJACENT to a Known armed enemy unit, may it rout into another hex ADJACENT to that same enemy unit.

    4. A routing unit may never move ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, unless in doing so it is leaving that enemy unit's Location.

    5. Otherwise, a routing unit may move toward an enemy unit.

    6. Assuming it can abide by the previous requirements (1-5), a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods hex (even if overstacked) 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.).

    7. As long as it reaches that hex (calculated via no. 6) during a single RtPh, it need not use the shortest route, but as long as it follows the shortest path in MF otherwise,

    8. 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 (b/c the original shortest path calculation had been used). ← See this

    9. A routing unit can rout into/out of/within a known minefield or FFE at its option, but is not forced to do so merely to reach the closest woods/building hex.

    10. 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].

    11. If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point.

    12. Upon reaching a building/woods Location not ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, a routing unit must stop and end its RtPh in that building/woods Location even if overstacked unless the unit can directly enter another building/woods Location in its next entered hex (not necessarily the same building or through a continuous woods hexside). [EXC: A broken unit in a building need not consider a hex of the same building in which it begins the RtPh as its closest building hex if it prefers to rout out of that building altogether and toward another building/woods hex—even if it must cross Open Ground or another building hex of the same building to do so. A routing unit may also ignore a building/woods hex if that hex is no farther from a Known enemy unit than its starting hex, even if it must rout through that now-ignored hex to reach its destination.]
     
  20. Russ Isaia

    Russ Isaia Member Silver Supporting Member

    292
    Oct 23, 2015
    One reason I can't understand the wording is that the rule is stated in the middle, not first. The rule is "rout to the building or woods nearest in MF." The conditions to that determination unfortunately appear before the rule is stated and you are only reminded of the conditions via the "previous requirements" clause. That means you have to keep all those sentences in mind until you get to and through the rule. Too much for my small brain. State the rule, then the conditions to its application, then the exceptions, then the consequences of non-compliance. In that order.

    Another reason is that there are two rules being addressed: the determination of the rout destination and the conduct of the rout. They are intimated connected, dependent on each other (for example, the destination of the rout may have to change if in the conduct of the rout one comes into the LOS of a new EU), and in large part subject to the same conditions and exceptions. But dealing with both in one paragraph is just too much for me to handle.

    Unpack it, reorder its elements, and even repeat some of it. Nothing wrong with the words that a different organization couldn't resolve.
     
    Eagle4ty likes this.

Share This Page