Personally I would make the infantry burst through the cavalry and then start their wheel for the base line. I not see any reason for them to be destroyed as they can burst through the cavalry as a legal move. The rules say the should end their move closer to their edge if possible but there is only a possible not a must.
Keith
Routing in the JAP when things are in the way
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Well there is room if they shift but can a BG that is bursting through as part of a turn shift? Generally the bursting through rules only allow shifts if as a reault there is no bursting through.MikeK wrote:They can burst through but there is no room for them once they get through.BlackPrince wrote:I not see any reason for them to be destroyed as they can burst through the cavalry as a legal move.
Keith
I am still not sure on this one.
It's an absolute in the rules:hammy wrote:Well there is room if they shift but can a BG that is bursting through as part of a turn shift? Generally the bursting through rules only allow shifts if as a reault there is no bursting through.MikeK wrote:They can burst through but there is no room for them once they get through.
I am still not sure on this one.
MikeK wrote: The Cavalry being there, they wheel and burst through the Cavalry "with no shifting or contraction being allowed at all" (p67). Per page 48 in a burst through rout they are moved to the full extent of their movement, then, if there is not room beyond the farthest BG they have burst through, they are destroyed. There not being room here, they burst through and are destroyed.
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
The bit in the evading rules is quite specific, if shifting, etc. does not mean you clear friends then you cannot shift, etc. and must burst through - and it is the evade rules you sue for shifts, etc. in routs.hammy wrote:Well there is room if they shift but can a BG that is bursting through as part of a turn shift? Generally the bursting through rules only allow shifts if as a reault there is no bursting through.MikeK wrote:They can burst through but there is no room for them once they get through.BlackPrince wrote:I not see any reason for them to be destroyed as they can burst through the cavalry as a legal move.
Keith
I am still not sure on this one.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
I agree but I just have this feeling that the turn or wheel to get to point in the right direction is different. I am almost certainly wrong but the reason I think it may have to be the case is that I have a feeling there have been a number of situations where this has had to be the case in order to get routs to move at all.nikgaukroger wrote:The bit in the evading rules is quite specific, if shifting, etc. does not mean you clear friends then you cannot shift, etc. and must burst through - and it is the evade rules you sue for shifts, etc. in routs.
In this situation as I see it there are the following options:
1: The BG tries to wheel in place to face the baseline, hits the cavalry disrupting them and is then unable to complete the rout becuase of the spear so is removed.
2: As 1 but because the BG is removed the whole move doesn't happen even though it has to burst through the cavalry to get to the point where the spear are within 1 MU of its front so the routers are simply removed.
3: The routers wheel and contract into a column and move down the slot between the cavalry and the spear ending with the routers as close to their base line as possible but requiring contractions and slides in the turn (which is where I think the problem I mentioned at the start kicks in).
4: The routers wheel very slightly (to pass beyond the rear corner of the spear) and then burst through the cavalry ending up beyond them.
Can anyone else come up with another option and who thinks which is right.
I think that we're agreed that no shifts or contraction are allowed.
Also, that if the BG is not to be destroyed then it must burst through the friendly cavalry.
Having read a bit more, and taken in other comments I 'think' the following should occur:
The BG wheels as far as posiible such they have a straight line past the edge of the enemy.
They move in that straight line until their nearest cornet is level with the enemy corner
They then continue to wheel towards their base edge until they complete their move distance, or until they have cleared the cavalry
The cavalry become disordered
Rules that I'm using to argue this case are the first 2 bullet points on page 108:
Broken troops not in contact with enemy make a normal distance move towards their side's table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropriate to end their move as close to the rear table edge as possible.
.....The rule doesn't say 'directly' towards. The most important part of this rule is the 'as close to' part.
If any obstructions would prevent completion of a routing BGs move adjust as per evade moves.
.....Since the BG has to burst through it's own cavaly the evade moves restrict it to no shifts and no contractions.
If its path is obstructed by unbroken enemy that cannot be bypassed, the battle broup is destroyed at the end of the turn.
.....In this particular position, the enemy can be bypassed so the BG will not be destroyed.
Basically: The broken BG will attempt to go round the enemy BG to end as close to its own rear edge as possible.
There is no rule that says you can't wheel while bursting through a friendly BG.
Also, that if the BG is not to be destroyed then it must burst through the friendly cavalry.
Having read a bit more, and taken in other comments I 'think' the following should occur:
The BG wheels as far as posiible such they have a straight line past the edge of the enemy.
They move in that straight line until their nearest cornet is level with the enemy corner
They then continue to wheel towards their base edge until they complete their move distance, or until they have cleared the cavalry
The cavalry become disordered
Rules that I'm using to argue this case are the first 2 bullet points on page 108:
Broken troops not in contact with enemy make a normal distance move towards their side's table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropriate to end their move as close to the rear table edge as possible.
.....The rule doesn't say 'directly' towards. The most important part of this rule is the 'as close to' part.
If any obstructions would prevent completion of a routing BGs move adjust as per evade moves.
.....Since the BG has to burst through it's own cavaly the evade moves restrict it to no shifts and no contractions.
If its path is obstructed by unbroken enemy that cannot be bypassed, the battle broup is destroyed at the end of the turn.
.....In this particular position, the enemy can be bypassed so the BG will not be destroyed.
Basically: The broken BG will attempt to go round the enemy BG to end as close to its own rear edge as possible.
There is no rule that says you can't wheel while bursting through a friendly BG.
Terry, if you are expressing the way the rules should work, then I think it requires a significant and I hope a very careful errata change to make bullet 1 the intended broad writ to use turns and wheels to get past obstructions.
The language as written seems clear as I described above, bullet 1 applying when there are no obstructions and bullet 2 with its strict evade mechanics when there are obstructions. Therefore errata would be needed to make clear that bullet 2 is a player option (or mandatory in whichever circumstances are intended). I presume it would have to be just an optional "may adjust" to provide extra tools to get as near to the baseline as possible. Your interpretation would mean that routers would be required by bullet 1 to turn or wheel opportunistically in order to to burst through friends if that would bump them a bit closer to the baseline. They can't avoid a favorable burst-through as that would conflict with bullet 1.
It seems like a significant rules change to me. We've certainly been bursting through and removing troops based on strict application of the 2 bullets and the page 67 evade mechanics when there is an obstacle on the path to the base edge - many router lives could be saved if they can wheel and turn to make for gaps based on getting nearer to the base edge. It opens new tactics about how to move troops troops to shape potential rout paths, and certainly makes it harder to block routs. It does remind me of early DBM geometry issues.
I assume evaders would still be limited to the evade mechanics as they are presumed to be bound to move in a more coherent formation than routers.
The language as written seems clear as I described above, bullet 1 applying when there are no obstructions and bullet 2 with its strict evade mechanics when there are obstructions. Therefore errata would be needed to make clear that bullet 2 is a player option (or mandatory in whichever circumstances are intended). I presume it would have to be just an optional "may adjust" to provide extra tools to get as near to the baseline as possible. Your interpretation would mean that routers would be required by bullet 1 to turn or wheel opportunistically in order to to burst through friends if that would bump them a bit closer to the baseline. They can't avoid a favorable burst-through as that would conflict with bullet 1.
It seems like a significant rules change to me. We've certainly been bursting through and removing troops based on strict application of the 2 bullets and the page 67 evade mechanics when there is an obstacle on the path to the base edge - many router lives could be saved if they can wheel and turn to make for gaps based on getting nearer to the base edge. It opens new tactics about how to move troops troops to shape potential rout paths, and certainly makes it harder to block routs. It does remind me of early DBM geometry issues.
I assume evaders would still be limited to the evade mechanics as they are presumed to be bound to move in a more coherent formation than routers.
The wheel towards base edge doesn't work since the Cav is still in the way. Do you perhaps mean they keep moving past the spears and through the Cav until the left file pops out the other side, and then with open field ahead of them they must wheel to face the baseline the next rout move?terrys wrote: The BG wheels as far as posiible such they have a straight line past the edge of the enemy.
They move in that straight line until their nearest cornet is level with the enemy corner
They then continue to wheel towards their base edge until they complete their move distance, or until they have cleared the cavalry
-
petedalby
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Fareham, UK
Hi Mike - your desire for total clarity is admirable but if there was a FAQ or errata for every unusual situation then the supporting text would exceed the rules.
The situation Hammy describes is an unusual one - certainly not one I've ever seen before - and unsurprisingly there are different opinions on how to resolve it.
Personally I'd prefer to treat each unusual sitiation on its merits. Most of the time the 2 players will agree on how best to resolve them. Where they can't agree they can get an umpire's view or roll a dice.
What we don't want to have to do is to wade through some encyclopedic text to find the answer.
No offence.
Pete
The situation Hammy describes is an unusual one - certainly not one I've ever seen before - and unsurprisingly there are different opinions on how to resolve it.
Personally I'd prefer to treat each unusual sitiation on its merits. Most of the time the 2 players will agree on how best to resolve them. Where they can't agree they can get an umpire's view or roll a dice.
What we don't want to have to do is to wade through some encyclopedic text to find the answer.
No offence.
Pete
Petedalby, I don't see having blocking friendlies or enemies in the way as unusual. Applying the obstruction and bursting through rules result in the BG being destroyed either way as the troops stand.
If the Cav was not there, 5 MU movers could make a 90 wheel and then shift back bases to scoot past the enemy foot in a one-wide column (not kinked), and I'd concede slower troops could start off with an incomplete 90 wheel towards the position where they could finish the wheel and scoot past on their next move. After all, they are wheeling to face the baseline and they don't end any farther point to point from the baseline than if they turned and were blocked and destroyed, so it appears covered by the first bullet. If the MF started facing towards its own baseline rather than to the side and wanted to turn left and then wheel, I would have said they can't do it and are destroyed in place - cheesy at the very best to turn and wheel their way out of it.
But add in the (to me novel) ability to supervene the obstruction-related rules in order to target gaps farther along the line of battle and the dry predictability of blocking routers is gone - it opens up a whole set of new questions and creative friendly and annoying enemy tactics!
If the Cav was not there, 5 MU movers could make a 90 wheel and then shift back bases to scoot past the enemy foot in a one-wide column (not kinked), and I'd concede slower troops could start off with an incomplete 90 wheel towards the position where they could finish the wheel and scoot past on their next move. After all, they are wheeling to face the baseline and they don't end any farther point to point from the baseline than if they turned and were blocked and destroyed, so it appears covered by the first bullet. If the MF started facing towards its own baseline rather than to the side and wanted to turn left and then wheel, I would have said they can't do it and are destroyed in place - cheesy at the very best to turn and wheel their way out of it.
But add in the (to me novel) ability to supervene the obstruction-related rules in order to target gaps farther along the line of battle and the dry predictability of blocking routers is gone - it opens up a whole set of new questions and creative friendly and annoying enemy tactics!
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8842
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
using as close to the rear table edge as possible opens up a big can of cheese, bieng able to end further away, but still end as close as possible. I say they should just be removed.Make a normal distance move toards their sides rear table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropriate to end their move as close to the rear table edge as possible.
I agree, I have been thinking about the as close as possible clause and agree it is problematic.philqw78 wrote:using as close to the rear table edge as possible opens up a big can of cheese, bieng able to end further away, but still end as close as possible. I say they should just be removed.Make a normal distance move toards their sides rear table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropriate to end their move as close to the rear table edge as possible.
For example a BG facing 45 degrees to the baseline gets closer to the baseline by moving straight ahead than by wheeling and heading towards the baseline.
The other think I have been mulling over is the option where the routers end up in a column across the front of the cavalry which they can achieve if they are allowed to shift and slide during the wheel.
Overall I am still not 100% happy on what the real answer is but I definitley sympathise with Pete's thought that a huge tome of case law to cover every situation is not what we want.