When Immediate means..."in a little bit"

[Stewart]

10.41 VOLUNTARY BREAK: Units within both the LOS and Normal Range per 10.532 of an armed, unbroken Known enemy ground—and/or ADJACENT to any unbroken enemy ground unit—may voluntarily break (even if pinned) at the start of the RtPh so as to be able to rout during that RtPh (but only if breaking will not cause their immediate Reduction or elimination).

Not really sure how immediate this is...Especially, if the unit will be routing AFTER the active players units.
How immediate is immediate?

 

[Philippe D.]

Well, the only plausible interpretation seems to be "during that very same RtPh". That's how I've seen it played in the last 30 years or so.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Not really sure how immediate this is...Especially, if the unit will be routing AFTER the active players units.

Units that voluntary break, do so at the start of that player's Rout Phase - so the other player (if the ATTACKER) will have conducted all his routs already.

 

[Stewart]

Units that voluntary break, do so at the start of that player's Rout Phase - so the other player (if the ATTACKER) will have conducted all his routs already.

They have to break at the start of THE Rout Phase and not in that Player's Rout Phase


6.1 START OF RtPh:

6.11B Unit(s) may Voluntarily Break (A10.41). "...start of the RtPh..."

6.2 DURING RtPh:

6.21B Conduct all routs


MAKES a HUGE difference in Routing options.

 

[Larry]

6.1 is sequential though. Attacker performs 6.11 and 6.21 then the defender performs 6.11 and 6.21.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

They have to break at the start of THE Rout Phase and not in that Player's Rout Phase

All sub-steps in the RtPh are first done by the ATTACKER, then by the DEFENDER. There are Q&A clarifying that this.



I.e., this means the ATTACKER his entire RtPh first, then the DEFENDER.....I am not sure I agree with the Q&A...but they are there.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Here is one (a tad long) Q&A:


A10.41
A10.41 says units may voluntary break “..at the start of the RtPh”. The Comprehensive Rout Example indicates that units may
voluntary break at the start of their RtPh (i.e. attacker completes all routs, then defender commences their RtPh with voluntary
break of their units). When does the defender conduct voluntary breaks: a) at the start of the RtPh? or b) at the start of their RtPh
after the attacker has completed all their RtPh activities?
A. b)

The ASOP for 6. Rout Phase says “Attacker first, then Defender (A3.6).” Each step in the ASOP is indicated as “Both”. Should
the RtPh be conducted as:
a) Attacker does Steps 6.11, 6.12, 6.21, 6.31 then Defender does Steps 6.11, 6.12, 6.21, 6.31.
or
b) Attacker does Step 6.11, Defender does Step 6.11, Attacker does Step 6.12, Defender does Step 6.12, Attacker does Step 6.21,
Defender does Step 6.21, Attacker does Step 6.31, Defender does Step 6.31.
or
c) Attacker does Steps 6.11, 6.12, Defender does Steps 6.11, 6.12, Attacker does Step 6.21, Defender does Step 6.21, Attacker
does Step 6.31, Defender does Step 6.31.
or
d) Some other sequence?
A. a)

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The sequence might be clarified in the large COMPREHENSIVE ROUT EXAMPLE as well - haven't checked that.

 

[Stewart]

All sub-steps in the RtPh are first done by the ATTACKER, then by the DEFENDER. There are Q&A clarifying that this.

View attachment 19572

I.e., this means the ATTACKER his entire RtPh first, then the DEFENDER.....I am not sure I agree with the Q&A...but they are there.

Well, voluntary breaking isn't routing as it doesn't require you to rout.

So, yeah the attacker routs all units Broken units of both sides may seek cover, with the ATTACKER routing his units first (10.5). It doesn't say that he has to BREAK and rout..

the reference to 10.5 is DURING the rout phase NOT at the start of the rout phase.

All activities in the same Step may be conducted in any order unless stated otherwise; if actions conflict, the ATTACKER goes first. In each Step Number (e.g., "1.11A")
So, Start of RtPh.....attacker breaks first.....then the Defender as that is the same STEP....then you should move on.
PER the ASOP

the START, DURING, END and several discrete Steps.
6.11B (pretty sure this is a step) Unit(s) may Voluntarily Break (A10.41). "...start of the RtPh..."

6.2 (step) DURING RtPh:

6.21B (Step) Conduct all routs

Please let me know if each of the above are not different steps.

And do we ignore the CCPh processing of steps?
The CCPh completely falls apart performing this interpretation of "B". So even to the extent that The ATTACKER can remove all TI and PINNED before the Defender can perform his CCPh actions.


I'm thinking....take a year off from the production and fix the RB or get someone to do it since it's electrons now.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Well, voluntary breaking isn't routing as it doesn't require you to rout.

Can't see anyone has claimed this so I am not sure why you bring it up.

Voluntary Breaks is still part of the Rout Phase - check the ASOP.

But by all means - do not follow that Q&A (that has clarified how it's meant to be played) and play it like you want to.....

And do we ignore the CCPh processing of steps?
The CCPh completely falls apart performing this interpretation of "B". So even to the extent that The ATTACKER can remove all TI and PINNED before the Defender can perform his CCPh actions.

Of course the CCPh has nothing to do with the RtPh - again, read the ASOP.

You won't find this part under the CCPh....

 

[SSlunt]

I think that Stew is correct in this one and the Q/A is missing the spirit of the ASOP
"each phase is usually broken down into three main parts: the START, DURING, END and several discrete Steps. In each Step Number (e.g., "1.11A"), the player(s) involved is specified as A (ATTACKER), D (DEFENDER), or B (Both). "
Each specific Step is done Attacker / Defender ... All activities in the same Step may be conducted in any order unless stated otherwise; if actions conflict, the ATTACKER goes first.
IMHO pretty straight forward Every Step is done Attacker/Defender.
each phase is usually broken down into three main parts: the START, DURING, END. In this case Everyone does 6.1 THEN Everyone Does 6.2 THEN 6.3 unless you are suggesting that the entire phase is done by one side then the other
So there are Two Starts of the RtPh and Two During and Then Two Ends of the RtPh

10.41 VOLUNTARY BREAK: Units within both the LOS and Normal Range per 10.532 of an armed, unbroken Known enemy ground—and/or ADJACENT to any unbroken enemy ground unit—may voluntarily break (even if pinned) at the start of the RtPh so as to be able to rout during that RtPh (but only if breaking will not cause their immediate Reduction or elimination).
Note that is says Start of the RtPH not ast the Start of its RtPh

 

[Doug Leslie]

Did something happen during a game which makes the sequencing important? Would be helpful to see a screenshot or at least a description of the situation.

 

[Philippe D.]

I don't think it's very difficult to come up with a situation where it matters. If the Defender must decide to self-break or not before the Attacker routs, there are situations where the Attacker can rout a unit so as to position it somewhere it will make all routs impossible for the self-break unit.

Also, if the Defender decides to break before the Attacker routs, it means the Attacker's units that are adjacent and broken, don't have to rout anymore.

 

[Doug Leslie]

I don't think it's very difficult to come up with a situation where it matters. If the Defender must decide to self-break or not before the Attacker routs, there are situations where the Attacker can rout a unit so as to position it somewhere it will make all routs impossible for the self-break unit.

Also, if the Defender decides to break before the Attacker routs, it means the Attacker's units that are adjacent and broken, don't have to rout anymore.

Sure, I understand that. Was just curious to see what might have happened to give rise to the OP question.

 

[Michael R]

Sure, I understand that. Was just curious to see what might have happened to give rise to the OP question.

I doubt there was such a situation. I believe the author just enjoys picking apart the rule book.

 

[Doug Leslie]

There is a contradiction between the wording of the first sentence of 10.41 and what was thereafter said in the comprehensive rout example, which I think might have been added after the first edition was published. It would have been better if the original wording had said “the” as opposed to “its” but the Q&A has resolved any ambiguity. If would be ideal if the rule book were updated to correct this sort of discrepancy but not everyone will own the EASLRB and those who don’t might not be happy if MMP went down that route as opposed to the current practice of issuing Q&As and errata as they go along. Maybe they could do both?

 

[Russ Isaia]

They have to break at the start of THE Rout Phase and not in that Player's Rout Phase


6.1 START OF RtPh:

6.11B Unit(s) may Voluntarily Break (A10.41). "...start of the RtPh..."

6.2 DURING RtPh:

6.21B Conduct all routs


MAKES a HUGE difference in Routing options.

What you quote is preceded by

"6. ROUT PHASE

"ATTACKER first, then DEFENDER (A3.6)."

So the only logical construction is that all of 6 must be completed by the ATTACKER before the DEFENDER does anything in 6.

Edit: and let's not forget this tidbit from the preface to the ASOP: "Should the order of actions given in the body of the rules conflict with the ASOP, the latter takes precedence."

 

[SSlunt]

“doubt there was such a situation. I believe the author just enjoys picking apart the rule book”

You are wrong here. I have seen the exact example above about choosing to Route or not route in a game.

We all know that the wording and the capitalization of words in the rule book are extremely important and it is time to clear up the ambiguities. Remember that Q/A’s are not gospel The rule book is

What do we need is an updated rule book. When do we need it some years ago

 

[aloha_brian]

What do we need is an updated rule book. When do we need it some years ago

Totally disagree with this statement. If an updated rule book was created it would not be perfect. All of the same people would read and pick apart every sentence on why this new book is no good.

I believe conflicts between various chapters and charts should be resolved with errata but that's all.

 

[Doug Leslie]

“doubt there was such a situation. I believe the author just enjoys picking apart the rule book”

You are wrong here. I have seen the exact example above about choosing to Route or not route in a game.

We all know that the wording and the capitalization of words in the rule book are extremely important and it is time to clear up the ambiguities. Remember that Q/A’s are not gospel The rule book is

What do we need is an updated rule book. When do we need it some years ago

If there is a conflict between the wording of 10.41 and the comprehensive rout example which follows it, not to mention the ASOP which takes precedence over everything else and is supported by the Q&A, what reason would there be not to go with it?