Definition of "Away From Enemy"

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:00 pm

An interesting issue from Bayou Wars:

A Disrupted BG of Medium Foot is hit at a 45 degree angle by some CAV in a charge.
In the Impact Phase (before the CAV line up to face the Med foot the Medium foot are broken. (Drop 2 Levels)

The RAW for Initial Rout state that they move "Directly away from the Enemy"

Do the Med Foot rout to their own rear. (180 dgree turn and rout)
or
Do the Med Foot rout in the direction that the CAV are Facing when they hit the Med Foot (Approx a 90 degree turn and rout)
or
Do we look at the charge path and rout the Med Foot in the direction of the charge. (In this case approx a 75 degree turn and rout)

I would appreciate the authors and developers opinion on this one.

There is the potential for some cheese in one of these answers but I will save that for a follow up after the Author's opinion is stated.
Gino
SMAC

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:22 pm

This question, or a similar one, has been discussed at some length on this forum. You should be able to find it by some judicious searching.

IIRC the conclusion was that there was no simple formula for determining what direction was "directly away".

IMO you move them in such a way as you think maximises the (shortest) distance between the routers and the enemy. If your opponent can find a way that takes them even further then do it his way.

sergiomonteleone · Post by **sergiomonteleone** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:52 pm

Hi Gino,
I made a similar question because some time ago we had a discussion during a tournament.
The only kind of mouvement you can do are included in the table relative to movements.
So for example, only LF and LH can turn 180° and move away, without testing.
Sergio

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:56 pm

sergiomonteleone wrote:Hi Gino,
I made a similar question because some time ago we had a discussion during a tournament.
The only kind of mouvement you can do are included in the table relative to movements.
So for example, only LF and LH can turn 180° and move away, without testing.
Sergio

Normally, yes, but in this case we are discussing an immediate rout, so all troops can turn 180 and move their rout move.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:19 pm

Educated guess would be to move away from the charge direction, since that was the direction of the enemy that caused break in the first place and it wold make sense for routers to run directly away from the enemy. So I guess align the broken unit to face the chargers and then do a normal rout from the new direction

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Sorry that doesn't pass my smell test.
If the chargers would line up on the Chargee had they not broken why would it work the other way round if they break?
Good try though.
Gino
SMAC

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:04 am

A BG routing away from a charging enemy BG which hit it at a 45 degree angle will turn either 90 or 180 and then wheel until facing in the same direction as the charging BG, then complete their rout move.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:48 am

kal5056 wrote:The RAW for Initial Rout state that they move "Directly away from the Enemy"

Do the Med Foot rout to their own rear. (180 dgree turn and rout)
or
Do the Med Foot rout in the direction that the CAV are Facing when they hit the Med Foot (Approx a 90 degree turn and rout)
or
Do we look at the charge path and rout the Med Foot in the direction of the charge. (In this case approx a 75 degree turn and rout)

I would appreciate the authors and developers opinion on this one.

There is the potential for some cheese in one of these answers but I will save that for a follow up after the Author's opinion is stated.
Gino
SMAC

Directly away from the facing of the BG (s) causing the rout, if necessary turning 90 or 180 first then wheeling onto that path.

aventine · Post by **aventine** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:26 am

It gets worse when the chargers have stepped forward, do you use the overall frontage or the parallel frontage of the blocks to define the route taken? I argued that the chargers would have confornted and thus the route would be 180 degrees from the facing of the unit chargd, my opponent argued that the BG had infact broken at first contact and would rout away from the direction of charge. I recall the earlier thread which IIRC came to the conclussion that it was down to the players to decide which was the most obvious.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:39 am

Even when stepped forward all bases of the charging BG will have the same facing during impact, so the direction of the rout will be 180 degrees from their facing. The conform does not happen until the movement phase so has no effect on routs at impact.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:54 am

philqw78 wrote:Even when stepped forward all bases of the charging BG will have the same facing during impact, so the direction of the rout will be 180 degrees from their facing. The conform does not happen until the movement phase so has no effect on routs at impact.

Nor is there any logical "real life" reason why it should. The cavalry conform because the foot stood in formation. If they broke on impact, then clearly the cavalry would have no reason to conform.

Phil's diagnosis is correct.

There really is no case to answer in the example in question. It gets more complicated, however, when a BG routs from two enemies facing in different directions.....and that is where the previous discussion came in.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:03 am

rbodleyscott wrote: Phil's diagnosis is correct.

I'm going to frame that

Diagnosis, ooh, do I get a doctorate

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:13 am

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: Phil's diagnosis is correct.

I'm going to frame that

Diagnosis, ooh, do I get a doctorate

I doubt it. I am a doctor and I don't have a doctorate. Very few doctors do.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:44 am

philqw78 wrote:Even when stepped forward all bases of the charging BG will have the same facing during impact, so the direction of the rout will be 180 degrees from their facing. The conform does not happen until the movement phase so has no effect on routs at impact.

I think the implication in the question is whether you take the facing of the enemy bases as the starting point of "away" or some kind of average position of the bases in the enemy (and perhaps even friendly) battle groups. I've always assumed the former.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:56 am

grahambriggs wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Even when stepped forward all bases of the charging BG will have the same facing during impact, so the direction of the rout will be 180 degrees from their facing. The conform does not happen until the movement phase so has no effect on routs at impact.
I think the implication in the question is whether you take the facing of the enemy bases as the starting point of "away" or some kind of average position of the bases in the enemy (and perhaps even friendly) battle groups. I've always assumed the former.

That is certainly the intention of the rules.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:29 pm

Ok Here goes my attempt to avoid cheese.

Using the Phil Method approved by RBS:

XXXXOOOOXXXX
XXXXOOOOXXXX

--------FF
..........FF

Now if OOO is a disrupted BG anf FF charges them and OOO Breaks after fighting the impact phase.
If FF Charges Straight ahead they get 2 bases in contact and I think we all aggree that OOO will Rout directly to its own rear.
--------BUT------
If FF Chooses to wheel slightly to hit OOO at an angle (Still bringing 2 bases into contact) The resulting rout move will burst thru XXX resulting in thier disruption.

This (IMHO) affords an unintended potential for cheese and disadvantages Battle lines.

Opinions Please?

Gino
SMAC

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:46 pm

No. OO will turn 180 degrees then wheel until it faces directly away from the chargers. Not bursting through anybody. FF will then continue forward, not being able to catch the routers as it will hit XX, hopefully getting spanked for thinking he could pull some cheese. This would not be a legal flank contact and FF cannot avoid enemy in pursuit.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:49 pm

kal5056 wrote:Ok Here goes my attempt to avoid cheese.

Using the Phil Method approved by RBS:

XXXXOOOOXXXX
XXXXOOOOXXXX

--------FF
..........FF

Now if OOO is a disrupted BG anf FF charges them and OOO Breaks after fighting the impact phase.
If FF Charges Straight ahead they get 2 bases in contact and I think we all aggree that OOO will Rout directly to its own rear.
--------BUT------
If FF Chooses to wheel slightly to hit OOO at an angle (Still bringing 2 bases into contact) The resulting rout move will burst thru XXX resulting in thier disruption.

This (IMHO) affords an unintended potential for cheese and disadvantages Battle lines.

Potentially but

1) O routing on impact is pretty unlikely and so the potential for such cheese (if indeed it exists - see point 2) will not be a frequent occurrence.
2) O makes an initial 180 degree turn and then wheels on to the rout direction, and its bases can shift up to 1 base width sideways, so it is difficult to see how O can be made to burst through its friends if they are in a battle line.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:51 pm

RBS,
So we are in agreement that OOO will turn 180 degrees and move directly to its own rear no matter how sharp the angle of the charge by FF?
Is this correct?
Thank You for the concise answer.
Gino
SMAC

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:52 pm

No. It turns 180 then wheels to the direction of the charge.

Definition of "Away From Enemy"

Definition of "Away From Enemy"

Re: Definition of "Away From Enemy"

Re: Definition of "Away From Enemy"

Re: Definition of "Away From Enemy"