Definition of "Away From Enemy"

[rbodleyscott]

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?

No. Please reread my answer. (= what Phil said)

[philqw78]

Blue charges red at an angle. Red routs at impact. Red routs away from the charge. See impact and rout below

[rbodleyscott]

Blue charges red at an angle. Red routs at impact. Red routs away from the charge. See impact and rout below

With which I agree.

Note that there has been a thread re whether a BG can wheel out of the middle of a line and the conclusion was that it can, despite geometric considerations of the path of the outside rear base corner, because troops aren't really glued to rectangular bases and each individual rank within a base would start wheeling at the point it passes the initial point of wheeling. Thus no interpenetration in fact occurs.

However, even if this was not the case, the routing BG could drop back bases to avoid friends providing that none shifted more than 1 base width sideways from their normal path.

So really, there is no prospect of cheesily engineering anything in this situation.

[kal5056]

RBS,
Thank You.
Gino
SMAC

[petedalby]

First class diagrams Phil!

And good to see a sensible conclusion on the issue.

Pete

[philqw78]

All stars for me today

[lawrenceg]

Suppose:
the light and dark red were all one BG;
The blue charged the right hand and (as we look at it);
Blue is facing as in the diagram (i.e. 45 degrees right).

If red wheels until facing parallel to blue, it will move hardly any distance way from blue.

If red simply turns 180 and moves, it has a much better chance of escaping.

I suggest that the second option is the more realistic, and is more consistent with the requirement to move directly away from the enemy.

[philqw78]

I suggest that the second option is the more realistic, .

So as it stands you suggest then that any routed BG moves directly to its rear, or is it that a rule should be written for every situation.

In such a situation, to make it more realistic I would suggest that the BG split up, since it is an artificial collection of smaller units anyway. Those bases that are impacted break in the direction the chargers are moving and the remainder move so that they get as far from the chargers as possible. That's more realistic.

is more consistent with the requirement to move directly away from the enemy.

Moving at an angle to the direction of charge is not directly away.

[lawrenceg]

I suggest that the second option is the more realistic, .

So as it stands you suggest then that any routed BG moves directly to its rear, or is it that a rule should be written for every situation.

No, I suggest a single rule for all cases, namely the one i suggested earlier:

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.

In such a situation, to make it more realistic I would suggest that the BG split up, since it is an artificial collection of smaller units anyway. Those bases that are impacted break in the direction the chargers are moving and the remainder move so that they get as far from the chargers as possible. That's more realistic.

I agree with you, but we are contrained by the "BGs can't split up" rule.

is more consistent with the requirement to move directly away from the enemy.

Moving at an angle to the direction of charge is not directly away.

If a thing is directly behind you and you are moving away from it (forwards) then you are moving directly away. Directly away is not a well-defined term in English. It is also very difficult to define mathematically, unless you consider two single points. As BGs are not points, we run into problems, hence this thread. . If you imagine a charge just grazing the centre front of a target BG which breaks in impact, then routing in the charge direction makes them rout parallel to the chargers, not away from them.

[shall]

Hi all,

I am a bit worried this one is getting itself caught up in onerous detail that is a bit unhelfpul so will add my two-penneth. First I don't think getting too hung up on routers is something that isn't worth a great deal of time IMHO. The primary objective in the rules is to get them out of the danger zone and resolved asap so we can all get on with the rest of the game - hence the multiple rout of the JAP rout move.

As for breaking on contact before a conform its pretty rare, and you need to be DISRed for it to happen and then suffer a double drop. If it did cause people a problem or two - and I see nothing in this thread really that says it does - I personally wouldn't be too fussed about that. Don't get charged while DISR and suffer a double drop ... if you do and it causes trouble I am not sure I would classify that as cheese.

Its not worth having BGs split up as it can cause huge amounts of chaos later in the game (imagine the subsequent subgroups all now faced with problematic routs and you can have potentially that many burst throughs and CT drops!!!). Better to have them rout as a BG or get destroyed and removed if this is not possible. If broken up they are beyond realistic repair to me and out of the game.

So all you do is wheel to go directly away from the cause of the rout.

As for the words, directly away does not mean furthest away. Directly away means moving on a line perpendicular to the facing of the line you are moving away from. It is a statement of direction not distance. So as shorthand, it would seem to be the correct one for our intent. Directly away from the table edge is well accepted to be a perpendicular line to the table edge - or was through a dozen years of DBx. A wind blowing directly from the East is simply stating that it is going West .... and FWIW something going directly away from a point is a set of circles moving outward from that point (i.e. ripples). Here we are going directly away from a rectangles front, that's it.

Fully understand that our avoidance of verbosage might mean we need to explain here, so there it is So what RBS said Phil said was correct is the way I play and rule it at all times. FWIW had 3 at Rampage, 2 from shooting and 1 from a charge on FRGs - non of them caused a burst through of any friends.

Hope that helps add to RBS's clarry and that I did manage to grasp the issues in my quick run through tonight. Bit tired dso sorry if I missed something.

Si

[lawrenceg]

Hi all,

So all you do is wheel to go directly away from the cause of the rout.

As for the words, directly away does not mean furthest away. Directly away means moving on a line perpendicular to the facing of the line you are moving away from.

This is true for an infinitely long line, but not for a finite length line-segment. If you are crossing the T of a line segment, then directly away is parallel to the line segment, not perpendicular to it.

Fully understand that our avoidance of verbosage might mean we need to explain here, so there it is So what RBS said Phil said was correct is the way I play and rule it at all times. FWIW had 3 at Rampage, 2 from shooting and 1 from a charge on FRGs - non of them caused a burst through of any friends.

Hope that helps add to RBS's clarry and that I did manage to grasp the issues in my quick run through tonight. Bit tired dso sorry if I missed something.

Si

OK, looks like two authors agree that what they menat was "perpendicular to the front edge of the BG causing the rout (or in contact)"

[kal5056]

I personaly have no problem with the ruling of the authors and will play (and enforce) it this way in future. I only asked the question for clarity's sake.
Gino
SMAC

[kal5056]

Not to beat a dead horse BUT if a Fragged BG breaks as a result of a charge being declared on it do the routers run in the direction of the charge path or the direction that the chargers are facing when they declare the charge?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

[CaryGrant]

Not to beat a dead horse BUT if a Fragged BG breaks as a result of a charge being declared on it do the routers run in the direction of the charge path or the direction that the chargers are facing when they declare the charge?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

My first thought would be that it must be in the direction that the chargers are facing when they declare the charge.

According to the charge rules, a wheel can be made at any time during the charge. In the case of a fragmented BG, the charge is declared and the unit breaks and routs before any charge move is made.

However, what about the case of a LH unit who is going to wheel the full 90 degrees to contact a fragmented enemy BG. In this case, the direction of the charge should be used.

Therefore, I would think the direction of the charge should be used.

Hilton

[shall]

This is true for an infinitely long line, but not for a finite length line-segment. If you are crossing the T of a line segment, then directly away is parallel to the line segment, not perpendicular to it.

?? Doesn't make any sense to me at present I'm afraid Lawrence. Maybe you could expand off-line and it will make sense, but at present my vector analysis classes completely align with the rules from what I remember of them. Intriguing.

Si

[philqw78]

directly away is parallel

Surely this is wrong

[shall]

The charge path is how I play this. For sure FRG troops can be a bit of a liability therefore.

Also how would you deal with a BG charging FRG and wheeling massively to do do so otherwise? At the beginning it may not even be facing towards the target BG. This creates massive cheddar!!

Consider this ... a BG facing 90 degrees from the charge direction and parallel to the front of the BG to be charged, charges FRG troops in the middle ofa line. The chargers will wheel 90 and charge directly at the FRG. Surely in this case you want the FRG troops to flee to their rear.

In your implied alternative you would be saying the FRG troops would rout sideways 90 degrees which would be bizarre - and much more likely through lots of friends? inthe rpocess thereby creating lots of the cheese you are worryign about.

Hope that helps.

Si

[lawrenceg]

C is chargers facing nearly down the page. R is routers facing any direction.

Code: Select all

                                R
                                R
                                R
                        CCCCCC  R         directly away --->
                                R
                                R

Now suppose CCCCCC is a column facing the routers and the lead element wheels left or right 89 degrees just before contact. If the rout has to be in the direction of the charge, then this allows the chargers to control the direction of rout, which just has to be cheesy.

[aventine]

I agree with Lawrence, if a BG breaks as a result of shooting or being charged with FRG then surely it is better all round that they run for home ie their baseline or away from the cause whatever seems more likely. I know this will also have arguements against as not all such BGs will be facing away from their own baseline anyway. But generally the most sensible answer is the best and in the spirit of the game. To try and rule for every odd situation is maddness and ends up with complex rules systems that no one can handle. If in doubt consult an umpire and take the ruling in good spirit. If playing a friendly game debate and if still at odds throw a die.

And yes gamers will try and exploit any cheese they see thus giving them an advantage. Angled charge declarations are IMHO the easiest to pull cheese from.

[philqw78]

Now suppose CCCCCC is a column facing the routers and the lead element wheels left or right 89 degrees just before contact. This allows the chargers to control the direction of rout, which just has to be cheesy.

Just like that cheesy dog controls the sheep.