RUN FORREST RUN

[Larry]

All other Rout provisions apply unchanged to Low Crawl, e.g., rout must still be towards the nearest woods/building Location within 6 MF.

Towards is ambiguous. It could be in hexes, it could be in MF. As in Stewart's example, towards in hexes is impossible. Because the rules are written flexibly enough to include both, the answer should be according to context, or at least one of the two but never both greater in hexes and greater in MF.

 

[Stewart]

Not sure why the Rat Pack came up - seeing as the quote in post #114 wasn't from the Rat Pack....or at least it doesn't seem that way to me....

Robin couldn't understand that reprinting/restating Official ASL material can lead to errors. Not sure why he needed to write "War & Peace II"
Rat pack was just an example.
Guess it's kinda sensitive area for him.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Defending those who are not there to defend themselves. It's the honorable thing to do.

 

[Stewart]

Moving to C4 therefore meets the general principle that routing units should rout towards their destination

Correct,
Issues occur when play aids are created restating principles but lead to inaccurate statements.
There are some tricky rout paths that come up, but if players would slow down and read the rules for what they ALLOW vs what the PLAYER wants to do we'd see a lot less sloppy routing. A LOT less...

 

[Stewart]

I didn't (I particularily appreciate the "again").
Perhaps should you let the steam go down and try to express yourself in a congenial, or at least, if not able to be kind, a reasonable, way?

LFT reedited the rat pack, each time correcting some errors that the players noticed and reported to them.
They listen to the community and they do a fine job bettering their publications.
I presume that you meant "uselesness" rather than "usefulness" - otherwise, you would be complaining because you cannot make them useless...
The global feedback I have read about the rat charts is that many players use them and prefer them over the official charts, because they are more practical to use.

I don't see what Perry and playtests have to do with the question of the rat charts - the latter are a TPP product.
Perry has always answered the questions I sent to MMP, btw (one must use the appropriate email adress though).
Sometimes, with some delay, but most of the time within days.
And MMP do take players' feedback into account: you will have noticed that reissued scenarios in core modules are often tweaked to make them more balanced or to clarify possible ambiguities.

I don't use the rat charts - because I use the official ones and because I craft my own game aids - but be sure that it I used them and saw an error, I would contact LFT.
I have done it about their Inor pack (on the French forum) and the reaction has been outstanding.
As most players, rather than vent my irritation in a thread about someone in abstentia, I contact the person (or the publisher) directly.
It is much more efficient to change things.
You should try.

So why didn't you contact me directly instead of posting this complete derailment here???
Hmm?

 

[Robin Reeve]

You derailed the thread by yourself, without my help.
Don't doubt so much about your capacities.

 

[Larry]

Correct,
Issues occur when play aids are created restating principles but lead to inaccurate statements.
There are some tricky rout paths that come up, but if players would slow down and read the rules for what they ALLOW vs what the PLAYER wants to do we'd see a lot less sloppy routing. A LOT less...

In the law, we call that secondary sources. Even in cases published by "official" sources, the headnotes and summaries are not primary sources. The primary law is all that matters.

Here, the primary law is the ASLRB including its charts. The RAT, Perry Sez, etc. are all secondary sources that may or may not be correct in every instance. We give deference to the PS because MMP gets to construe its own rules. But the deference owed to that RAT or charts produced by other third parties can only be helpful when they are consistent with the primary source in the circumstances presented.

At the bottom line, summaries are necessarily incomplete. They are summaries. If a summary becomes a complete restatement, then it is a full regurgitation of the rules. We are all intelligent and prudent people that can recognize the the summary may fail in the nuanced situation not contemplated by 99% of game presentations.

JMHO, YMMV.

 

[Doug Leslie]

I don't think that the routing flowchart should be the issue here. I only linked to it to show that its interpretation of the Q&A is the same as mine ie the general rules regarding rout paths are applicable to normal rout as well as low crawl and at no point can a routing unit increase the distance in hexes from the target location compared to the shortest rout path originally selected.
The Q&A has appeared in three ASL annuals and therefore appears to have official status.

 

[Stewart]

Q6 MUST be chosen. From A10.51 "...a routing unit must move to the nearest (in MF calculated at the start of its RtPh) building or woods hex..."

Q6 requires 2 MF to reach, N5 and O7 require 3MF to reach.

You don't have to take the shortest route in MF only determine your destination by the shortest MF.

 

[apbills]

You don't have to take the shortest route in MF only determine your destination by the shortest MF.

No, you don't, but you still have to get to that target hex (barring the exception for shellhole/entrenchment/pillbox). You can not take a longer path that makes the move to the target hex illegal in the interim. Failure to reach the target hex when it is reachable at the start of the unit's RtPh, is not an allowable move (barring the shellhole/entrenchment/pillbox exception).

Edit: Let me ponder this answer a bit more, i.e., I need to think through the potential revealing of a new unit in LOS that would change the path. Perhaps this is a bit of sleaze.

Edit2: After looking at the image from the question, I would agree with Stewart. The move to Q6 could be performed by going into the Orchard/road at which point the newly Known enemy unit would prevent the move to Q6, forcing the rout to the building across the road.