RUN FORREST RUN

[Larry]

A. The question is whether a unit can rout via a path that uses more than the minimum MF. The answer is yes.

B. The second question is whether a unit can rout where we know from player omniscience that the unit won't get there. The unit does not know that because the barrier is not KEU. The example cited by Klas from the ASLRB says yes. The ASLRB states that instances will occur where the unit will have to refigure the rout destination.

If the unit can take the longer path which will become barred by later discovery of a KEU, unit can take advantage of both rules. When the unit in the example starts the rout to O6 and then discovers R6, the combination of rules permit him to take that rout and to refigure. He can do A, he can do B, therefore he can do A and B.

Stewart frames it as an oops. Robin frames it as manipulation. I think that this is one of the instances where you can manipulate the rout to get further away because COWTRA permits A and B.

 

[Doug Leslie]

A. The question is whether a unit can rout via a path that uses more than the minimum MF. The answer is yes.

B. The second question is whether a unit can rout where we know from player omniscience that the unit won't get there. The unit does not know that because the barrier is not KEU. The example cited by Klas from the ASLRB says yes. The ASLRB states that instances will occur where the unit will have to refigure the rout destination.

If the unit can take the longer path which will become barred by later discovery of a KEU, unit can take advantage of both rules. When the unit in the example starts the rout to O6 and then discovers R6, the combination of rules permit him to take that rout and to refigure. He can do A, he can do B, therefore he can do A and B.

Stewart frames it as an oops. Robin frames it as manipulation. I think that this is one of the instances where you can manipulate the rout to get further away because COWTRA permits A and B.

In the example cited by Klas, the unit is routing to the nearest rout destination by the shortest route (as it should). I don't see that as authority for the argument that, after determining that the nearest rout destination is 2 MF away, the routing unit can declare that it will use 6 MF to get there and then end up going somewhere else.

 

[Jeff Sewall]

A10.51...At the start of its RtPh, a routing unit must designate its destination and must attempt to reach it during that RtPh ...

Your entire argument is based on this phrase, but let's include the very next sentence in order to understand the context: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point."

"newly-Known enemy unit" obviously means from the viewpoint of the routing unit, not the omniscient player.

This is not the only case where an omniscient player is allowed by the rules to "steer" a routing unit to a desired destination. It's all part of good play.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Your entire argument is based on this phrase, but let's include the very next sentence in order to understand the context: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point."

"newly-Known enemy unit" obviously means from the viewpoint of the routing unit, not the omniscient player.

This is not the only case where an omniscient player is allowed by the rules to "steer" a routing unit to a desired destination. It's all part of good play.

No, my argument is based on the requirement that if a unit doesn't take the shortest MF route to its destination, it still has to arrive there.

 

[Jeff Sewall]

No, my argument is based on the requirement that if a unit doesn't take the shortest MF route to its destination, it still has to arrive there.

What if the shortest route could be interdicted (in this example, directly across the road), and the longer route could not be interdicted? Are you saying then that the unit still couldn't take the longer route because he won't be able to arrive there? And that would mean he would have to surrender (ignoring the upstairs level for the sake of this discussion)?

 

[Martin Mayers]

Your entire argument is based on this phrase, but let's include the very next sentence in order to understand the context: "If a newly-Known enemy unit prevents this, a new destination is re-figured from that point."

"newly-Known enemy unit" obviously means from the viewpoint of the routing unit, not the omniscient player.

This is not the only case where an omniscient player is allowed by the rules to "steer" a routing unit to a desired destination. It's all part of good play.

Changed my mind on this and agree.

 

[Doug Leslie]

What if the shortest route could be interdicted (in this example, directly across the road), and the longer route could not be interdicted? Are you saying then that the unit still couldn't take the longer route because he won't be able to arrive there? And that would mean he would have to surrender (ignoring the upstairs level for the sake of this discussion)?

That would be a vanishingly rare situation but, if the routing unit cannot use the longer route because an enemy unit prevents it, it either has to accept interdiction or surrender.
I think that there are two separate considerations here. Firstly, the routing unit has to choose a destination that is closest to it and all of the rules regarding KEU are applied. Thereafter, in general, it has to use the shortest route in MF to get there. It can however take a longer route provided that it reaches its original destination. If it can't do this, it has to use the shortest route with all that this might entail. That is what A10.51 says. Clearly there is divided opinion regarding this so a Perry Sez seems to be the only way to try to resolve the issue.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Then note the wording that allows the routing unit not to take the shortest route- "As long as it reaches that hex during a single RtPh".
Not "attempts" to reach that hex but "reaches" it. So if, at the start of its RtPh, the owning player decides to have it spend 6 MF to reach a target destination that is 2 MF away and a unit that is known to the owning player but out of the routing unit's LOS at that point subsequently prevents the broken unit from reaching its target, the terms of 10.51 have not been met and you can't do it. You are not even making the attempt,

What happens if the unit in R6 had been HIP, the routing player moves to O6, and then the player reveals the HIP unit? It's suddenly impossible for the routing unit to reach P7 and there's no way the routing player could have known this was going to happen.

What if the Russian player revealed a HIP unit in P7? What if the unit takes a longer route, but is Interdicted and pinned? Or a SMC is Interdicted and wounded? These are things that the routing player cannot know will happen.

I think you're being to strict in your reading of "as long as it reaches". I think it should be read "as long as it can reach that hex during a single RtPh (disregarding possible enemy units currently out of LOS, possible interdiction, possible HIP fortifications, etc.)".

 

[Stewart]

I think that this is one of the instances where you can manipulate the rout to get further away because COWTRA permits A and B.

You mean, kinda knowing how to use a rule to your advantage?

 

[Stewart]

Clearly there is divided opinion regarding this so a Perry Sez seems to be the only way to try to resolve the issue.

Not sure 2 out of 400 is much of a division,
But we await the answer to your Perry Sez Question.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Not sure 2 out of 400 is much of a division,
But we await the answer to your Perry Sez Question.

If truth is based on a majority's opinion...
[Rant mode on]
I would like to tell you that your way to engage rules debates is problematic.
Why do you need to interact with people with so much arrogance ?
Why do you need to constantly be conflictual ?
We all try our best to interpret the rules - and rout rules are among the less easy to grasp (cf. the two page example in the rulebook).
This is not a kindergarten pissing contest and it is not about winners and losers.
Whatever Perry's answer, we will all adapt readily.
I do hope that if it goes your way (as it could well go indeed), you will have the decency not to wave your finger and lecture us with a snarky : "I told you so!"
Let's try to develop congenial interactions: real life is already full of anger and strife. We don't need to bring the BS into our game community.
[Rant mode off]

 

[Doug Leslie]

I have sent this to Perry Cocke together with a link to the thread:

"There is some debate on Game Squad about this part of rule A10.51-

“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 (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.”

In the attached diagram, the broken unit has to declare Q6 as its rout destination. Rather than simply move directly there, is it permissible for it to commence its rout in O6, (thereby seeing the previously “unknown” (to the routing squad) unit in R6), and thereafter change its rout destination to N5 instead?"

Will post any reply when I receive it.

 

[aloha_brian]

Just to be clear; the broken unit does not have to declare Q6 as its rout destination. It can choose N5 (interdictable, but not a surrender issue because it has non-interdictable routing options), O7, or Q6. They are all legal rout destinations for the broken unit. The question probably should have said "... the broken unit has chosen Q6 as it's rout destination."

Sorry my mistake. I had P7 locked in my brain. You are of course correct

 

[Doug Leslie]

Just to be clear; the broken unit does not have to declare Q6 as its rout destination. It can choose N5 (interdictable, but not a surrender issue because it has non-interdictable routing options), O7, or Q6. They are all legal rout destinations for the broken unit. The question probably should have said "... the broken unit has chosen Q6 as it's rout destination."

Q6 is the nearest rout destination. Am I missing something?

 

[Robert Fabbro]

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.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Part of our debate is about when player's omniscience kicks in.
It is used :

• to determine a rout objective (which can be out of LOS of the brokie - e.g. behind a hill).
• to determine if a brokie surrenders during the RtPh - Interdiction may apply in hexes further than the first hex entered (cf. the A20.21 condition : ... "or only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction") and possibly out of the LOS of the initial hex - or the Interdictor can be initially out if LOS. But the unit surrenders to an eligible enemy unit ADJACENT to the initial Location.

Does that omniscience stop to the extent of choosing a rout path that will make the brokie recalculate its objective, while it could reach the original objective by using another rout path ?
Further than a Perry Sez, some additional lines in the rule could be welcome.

 

[SSlunt]

I have sent this to Perry Cocke together with a link to the thread:

"There is some debate on Game Squad about this part of rule A10.51-

“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 (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.”

In the attached diagram, the broken unit has to declare Q6 as its rout destination. Rather than simply move directly there, is it permissible for it to commence its rout in O6, (thereby seeing the previously “unknown” (to the routing squad) unit in R6), and thereafter change its rout destination to N5 instead?"

Will post any reply when I receive it.

In your question you needed to specify that the building is a ground level only because if he can route up stairs the required route path requirement change

 

[Doug Leslie]

In your question you needed to specify that the building is a ground level only because if he can route up stairs the required route path requirement change

The upper level can be ignored. Begs the question though: if the brokie nominated the upper level as its destination, could it step out into the street first, see the enemy unit in R6 and then rout somewhere else?

 

[Larry]

The brokie could always have chosen N5. it is, like P7, 3 MF away. The real question is, if M6 is not rally terrain, can the brokie now pick N8.

 

[TonyF]

Getting home to mom and apple pie.

Punching a bit above my weight class, so I apologize if I am missing something obvious. I am not sure it really matters, but I thought folks might be a bit more comfortable with an example where a routing unit is not taking the shortest rout path so as to avoid interdiction. So putting a slightly different spin on this, can the broken German squad in the example below select P7 as it rout target? If so, can it choose O6->O7->P7 as it rout path, allowing it to recalculate a new rout target upon reaching O6? Assume all buildings are ground level only. Note that there is a building in N8.