Routing Units

[shall]

We decided on the turn and wheel option, but it seemed a bit strange for units routing to be wheeling (by the right - run away) Presumably there would in practice be no need to maintain formation in a fleeing unit and the alternative one would have thought would be for them all just to run backwards and reform as best as possible after the initial rout.

Ok to give an authors view (but just 1). I use the evade methods for routs throughout. Granted it does say use the evade mechincs to get past any obstruction. For routs not in contact with enem,y we specify you make turns and wheels to get onto the right direction. I have always done the same wth initial routs to deal with complex situations. Most routs are simply straight away so there is no such issues.

So yes for my twopenneth, make the combination of turns and wheels the most easily gets you onto the line fo rout as you would with an evade. I will bounce this off RBS and TS to see if we can put a simple FAQ to the effect to follow the evade mechanisms to get onto line of rout in the event of a complex rout.

Looking at the above .... there are several such variants that are reasonable. Were I saked to rule on the specific it looks to that the BG is 3 ranks deep at the left hand side. I would turn it 90 so it faces the Hungarian knights and it would be 2 wide and 3 deep, and rout using wheels and shifts from there. This is because it looks like it will be easiest to get onto the direction of rout with a turn to the right rather than a turn to the top. But each would need to be dealt with under the general pricniples above.

hope that helps - at least to start - some author input on it.

Si

[SirGarnet]

Simon, how would the 180 work then if that was the quickest to put them on the direction of rout? If you use a turn 180, which edge of which bases is the rear edge for purposes of the turn - i.e., does the routing BG break contact with all but one of the Serbs in turning?

And, of course, a 90 degree turn to start breaks contact with the Janissaries entirely.

This could put a premium on skillful rout planning.

Mike

[shall]

Simon, how would the 180 work then if that was the quickest to put them on the direction of rout? If you use a turn 180, which edge of which bases is the rear edge for purposes of the turn - i.e., does the routing BG break contact with all but one of the Serbs in turning?

Well we need some sort of clear way by the sound of it ... so will give it a try.

The 180 one to me would be as follows.
1. Put the two end one back in position as a sort of "reform" to work with
2. Turn the BG 180 degrees and the old rear becomes the new front - so there would be a new front 3 wide on the line of the rear base
3. Wheel from there

And, of course, a 90 degree turn to start breaks contact with the Janissaries entirely.

No because you can't have your rear further away from the enemy - see page 66 including diagram. So they would be a BG 2 wide 3 deep with their rear edge touching the janissaries and then wheel and evade from there.

I think the second option gets on the line of out most quickly so would implement that one.

Si

[petedalby]

And, of course, a 90 degree turn to start breaks contact with the Janissaries entirely.

Not sure I follow that - see page 66 last bullet & continued on p67.

There is a real danger that we over complicate this issue. We had a virtually identical thread not so long ago where RBS (fortunately) made the same point as Si.

The common issue for both threads was that one player was trying to get his opponent to rout the broken BG through another BG.

Provided the routers move away from both enemy BGs, wheeling or turning as appropriate there shouldn't be an issue. Personally I use whichever move will get the routers furthest away - but when you're splitting the angle there's a good chance you'll still be caught.

Pete

[shall]

Indeed Pete.

I think what matters is to keep a sensible genereal principle.

Complex situation alwaystake a bit of judgement - and hey its soemthing for the umpire to do (as there isn't much usually at FOG comps!!)

In the above example I think the turn 90 will get them furthest away as Pete says.... and hence I would go with this if asked to rule it.

Si

[SirGarnet]

2. Turn the BG 180 degrees and the old rear becomes the new front - so there would be a new front 3 wide on the line of the rear base

Which does mean that rather than 3 bases being in contact with the Serbs only the leftmost base (the only one in the third rank) is still in contact.

Mike

[shall]

Yes but not sure I care about that much in a routing situation. Its just a mechanic to get them away and to make it difficult to dso so as routs get more complicated than "run as fast as you can away from that lot"!! Does the job if you think of it that way.

Si

[SirGarnet]

This actually makes routing seem a whole lot more complex in practice than it used to be! For me, anyway.

The 180 turn works here, although formation changing bases away from contact with pursuers seems inconsistent with the base removal rules for routers that pick up the bases farthest from the pursuers in order to avoid the routers slipping away.

The 90 degree turn with the Serbs on the new right edge is also a problem when the Clipeati lack the movement to wheel to the line of rout and then advance far enough to leave their rear clear of the Serbs rather than leaving themselves interpenetrating their pursuers. I assume that if they can't use the 90 degree approach successfully then they do the 180 turn.

[shall]

In the evade system you can use either I would suggest but don't have a book handy.

Not sure why it makes it more complicated. How else would you do it?

The facing 2 directions is complicated alas.

Si

[grahambriggs]

A few thoughts:

I agree the rules are a bit gappy here.

Not sure the bases facing to the side reform. It's in the BG formations section, pg 23 point 2. "will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms". Reforming happens only in the movement phase, so after the initial rout. So I imagine all the bases are turned 180 degrees to start with, so still ending in two directions.

The movement rules on page 40 make it clear that it's the BG as a whole that must move. The only bases allowed to move independently are commanders. Though you could claim that routing is phase specific and so an exception.

The only move that can bisect this angle is a wheel, so it seems logical (if not actually stated) that the routng BG will wheel 45 degrees then go straight forward.

[shall]

Certainly wheels 45 and goes that way. Take away the 2 directional bit and that part is clear.

The thing that makes it complex is the bases facing 2 directions. Don't think we covered it very clearly in terms of things facing in different directions so it takes a little imagination.

In my own mind above they haven't reformed anyway really, they just turned 90 which put them 2 wide and 3 deep. Whether you put the bases back or not makes no difference. Reform was a bad choice of words.

The essence to me is that the BG is still facing south. It can turn 90 to face East and be 2 wide 4 deep, or can turn North and be 3 wide and 3 deep. It then wheels from there. I now have my books and would argue that the routing player can choose which they want to do.

Si

PS I suspect that in reality we meant that the BG reforms when it moves, rather than in the movement phase (i.e. we were forgetting compulsory moves). I wonder what we would do if some shock foot were hit front and flank but recovered from DISR so that mounted bounced of, and then had enemy within distance and failed a shock test in the IMPACT phase. They couldn't do the move without reforming I guess, but need to charge. So I would suggest the sensible answer was they reformed to do the charge?? Might take a few years for anyone to conjure that one up on a tabletop!

[SirGarnet]

What seemed simple and obvious per the rules to me was turning all the bases to point away from the former front edge and then moving the routing group by wheel to the correct direction of rout. I was probably swayed by it looking right as well, the rear ranks leading the rout until they rally and reform, so the idea of doing a 180 group turn and switching the ranks around accordingly seemed absurd visually. Also a 90 degree turn was out for the wheeling reason I mentioned as well as looking very strange and allowing the routers to rearrange mixed BG bases (where it matters).

I understood the routers were intended not to lose contact or gain any distance on their pursuers by mechanical devices (base removals or formation changes), but that appears not to be an issue for movement, just for removals.

A 180 turn can make sense in terms of removal thereafter, picking up the farther front rankers and not the rear rankers such as supporting LF or MF.

[SirGarnet]

The essence to me is that the BG is still facing south. It can turn 90 to face East and be 2 wide 4 deep, or can turn North and be 3 wide and 3 deep. It then wheels from there. I now have my books and would argue that the routing player can choose which they want to do.

So, Simon, I take from your comment that "it routs directly away" in the second bullet on p 100 should be read as "it first reforms and uses turns and/or wheels of the player's choice as per evade moves to rout directly away", paralleling the reference to evades in the fourth bullet?

That covers initial rout.

Also correct that the routing BG does not reform in subsequent rout moves, as that would defeat the purpose of the base removal rule that the base farthest from the pursuers (i.e., the front of the routing BG) is removed to prevent base removal from breaking contact?

[hazelbark]

The thing that makes it complex is the bases facing 2 directions. Don't think we covered it very clearly in terms of things facing in different directions so it takes a little imagination.

In my own mind above they haven't reformed anyway really, they just turned 90 which put them 2 wide and 3 deep. Whether you put the bases back or not makes no difference.
The essence to me is that the BG is still facing south. It can turn 90 to face East and be 2 wide 4 deep, or can turn North and be 3 wide and 3 deep. It then wheels from there. I now have my books and would argue that the routing player can choose which they want to do.

Well you have be careful as a unit with a base turned is generally NOT going to be able to turn if the main BG turns 180 degrees and reform unless you allow the whole BG to shift the additional space to make room, or it happens to be as deep as it is wide. I.E. Does a turned KN that reforms slides over the whole BG 10mm because its old depth was 30 and now its width is 40mm.

I think the process that doesn't alter the rules much is something like:
1) the BG will use the direction the majority of its bases* are facing before routing as the main portion of the group for purposes of turning away and measuring bases.
2) Bases not in the main portion MUST shift as needed to fall behind the bases from the main portion.
3) The broken BG turns 90 or 180 degrees and then wheels to the angle dictated by the direction of the rout. As per the evade rules the choice of which direction is whichever is shorter to the angle of the move.* #
4) The BG then wheels until it is on the path of the charge.

* Where two equal choices present themselves, the player owning the broken BG may choose. (i.e. a move 45 degrees from current facing or an equal number of bases)

# Note I wonder actually from the PoV of trying to avoid having your BG pass through other friendly BGs if a 90 degree turn is too often always better. As say if you are trying to dodge non-Pike, Non-CV in 2 ranks, you turn. shift up to a base and then wheel away. This also if say you had a 4 wide BG allws you to close up when you turn and telescope away from the flank charge, probably cerrtainly getting caught by the enemy to your main front.

This process is going to mean that BGs that break while fighting in two directions are nearly always going to be caught by both BGs they were fighting except in extreme move disparities. Because the wheel and the fall back just burn so much distance. That is however a design decision that the authors should make.

I think this tends to work from a history point of view as it sort of assumes (if a single base is turned) that the flank charge is where the panic begins and thus they travel the farthest and interacts nicely with the angle of the charge idea.

[SirGarnet]

2) Bases not in the main portion MUST shift as needed to fall behind the bases from the main portion.

What do you mean? Something different from having the BG reform on the corner located between both opponents?

3) The broken BG turns 90 or 180 degrees and then wheels to the angle dictated by the direction of the rout. As per the evade rules the choice of which direction is whichever is shorter to the angle of the move.* #

Whether turning 90 or 180, the BG's side is hard up against an enemy in that situation - you can ignore the whole wheeling through enemy issue, but if the wheel ends with part of the BG still on top of enemy, how do you shift or displace it? Sideways relative to its initial position? Sideways from the position after wheel? Move it extra to get clear?

4) The BG then wheels until it is on the path of the charge.

You mean to the angle that is the direction of rout.

* Where two equal choices present themselves, the player owning the broken BG may choose. (i.e. a move 45 degrees from current facing or an equal number of bases)

Do they have to choose one option if the other results in the wheeling problem above?

# Note I wonder actually from the PoV of trying to avoid having your BG pass through other friendly BGs if a 90 degree turn is too often always better. As say if you are trying to dodge non-Pike, Non-CV in 2 ranks, you turn. shift up to a base and then wheel away. This also if say you had a 4 wide BG allws you to close up when you turn and telescope away from the flank charge, probably cerrtainly getting caught by the enemy to your main front.

The evade turn is based on the final rear edge position, so any telescopery is back towards the flank attacker.

[hazelbark]

2) Bases not in the main portion MUST shift as needed to fall behind the bases from the main portion.

What do you mean? Something different from having the BG reform on the corner located between both opponents?

I would be happy with that option but the issue is then some is physically displacing in line. See my comment about a KN turned it is 30mm deep and 40 wide. You reform and who shifts 10 mm?

One idea is the turned bases shift behind just like in an evade move to avoid an obstruction.[/quote]

[hazelbark]

Whether turning 90 or 180, the BG's side is hard up against an enemy in that situation - you can ignore the whole wheeling through enemy issue, but if the wheel ends with part of the BG still on top of enemy, how do you shift or displace it? Sideways relative to its initial position? Sideways from the position after wheel? Move it extra to get clear?

Just you standard rules (evade) for fleeing borken troops. Not a problem I think. You specifically can't be there so you must have the base shift back to the fall behind spot.

[SirGarnet]

you must have the base shift back to the fall behind spot.

Fall behind spot?

You mean if the Clipeati turn 90 degrees and are 2 wide and 4 ranks deep, then VMD and only the front rank clears the Serbs in wheeling, the other 5 bases all stack up to the left (assuming there is room)?

As an artifact of the wheel, it's not the way bases shift back in an evade.

[shall]

There is a danger of making this too complicated...

Mike as ever is usefully pressing for specificity and does a great jobof convering that into guidance too - and many thanks for this.

FWIW the way I play it is as follows:

1. When routing directly away from a combat you just turn 180 and go for it (we are all happy with this).
2. Complexity 1 is when the direction is something different. In this case use the evade mechanisms to turn and wheel to get onto the path of rout. You can choose 90 or 180 as in evades.
3. Complexity 2 is when the troops are facing 2 directions. In this case I still just turn and take the majority facing to be the initial front. So in the above example the front is facing south. The BG is 1 1/2 bases deep. So if it turns to the side it is 2 wide and pulled back to touch the flank contacting troops. There is no REFORM issue - they are simple 60mm deep when seen from the front. If they have equal bases on two frontages choose the front. Then apply 2 from there.
4. Complexity 3 is when they need to avoid onstacles. Having done 3,2,1 they can shift and drop back as long as legal in the rules
5. Complexity 4 - there is pysically no room to rout via 3,2,1 and 4. They burst through friends of are destroyed if blocked by enemy.

I find breaking it into independent bits and recombining useful. Hope that helps.

Si

[MCollett]

1. When routing directly away from a combat you just turn 180 and go for it (we are all happy with this).
2. Complexity 1 is when the direction is something different. In this case use the evade mechanisms to turn and wheel to get onto the path of rout. You can choose 90 or 180 as in evades.
3. Complexity 2 is when the troops are facing 2 directions. In this case I still just turn and take the majority facing to be the initial front. So in the above example the front is facing south. The BG is 1 1/2 bases deep. So if it turns to the side it is 2 wide and pulled back to touch the flank contacting troops. There is no REFORM issue - they are simple 60mm deep when seen from the front. If they have equal bases on two frontages choose the front. Then apply 2 from there.
4. Complexity 4 is when they need to avoid onstacles. Having done 3,2,1 they can shift and drop back as long as legal in the rules
5. Complexity 5 - there is pysically no room to rout via 3,2,1 and 4. They burst through friends of are destroyed if blocked by enemy.

Of these, 'Complexity 2' is the only one that is not actually covered by the rules, thus causing the initial query in this thread.

(The rule covering 'Complexity 3' is that there is no 'Complexity 3'.)

Best wishes,
Matthew