Slitherine

What a pity, the wrong answer was so much neater

OK, in which case so we probably need a FAQ for how the rout move is handled.

shall wrote:

Where I think an error has been made is that as you pointed out during the movement phase the chargers chould have conformed to the cavalry.

Only if they re in close combat at the time of the movement phase - whoch means they have to have already fought an impact of melee combat. Its defined in the glossary specifically this way.

So in this case they don't conform. This is deliberate so that you can drive routers away from you rather than having your own direction somehow manipulated by their facing.

Si

Interesting, I shall read that section of the rules again. It certianly isn't the way I thought it should be played but then I have rarely if ever charged a broken BG.

Close Combat
"Close Combat" is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks or is destroyed (or a battle group fighting only as an overlap moves away).
Impact and melee phase combat use the close combat mechanisms. An exception is that rear support shooting in the impact phase uses the shooting mechanisms to determine the number of hits.

Also probably relevant from page 100 "Fighting Broken Troops":

There is no explicit shooting or close combat against, or by, broken troops. Damage inflicted on broken battle groups is assessed in the joint action phase.

Those inclined to angels dancing on pinhead discussions may wish to examine the word "explicit" in the second quote

shall wrote:Only if they re in close combat at the time of the movement phase - whoch means they have to have already fought an impact of melee combat. Its defined in the glossary specifically this way.

So in this case they don't conform. This is deliberate so that you can drive routers away from you rather than having your own direction somehow manipulated by their facing.

Si

That is interesting, and certainly new to me. I can see the point of it, and think it is a good rule. However, I suspect that a lot of people will be having the same reaction that I am. This definitely calls for a FAQ entry.

Marc

Yes I think a considered FAQ for this stream would be a good idea. Everything so far my interps rather than a team view. I have already posted it across to the authors forum.

Si

philqw78 wrote:They charge in the impact phase, conform at the start of the manouver phase and then that makes it easy for the Cav to rout directly away you mean.

Nice simple solution.

What if they break in the impact phase? Then there is no conforming. So you have unconformed units beginning the rout and continuing the rout in the JAP phase.

shall wrote: I will pop this on across to the authors forum as well. Troops have to turn as part of an initial rout, even though it doesn't explictly say you can do so in the rules (unless I am missing something we put in). So how do troops who start their rout fighting and facing the enemy make their rout move if you can only wheel as part of a rout move?

Also consider in this review, a BG breaking and having to bisect the angle from two BGs. The new path after the initial turn is likely not going to be 90 or 180 from an existing contact.

IMO this is another rare situation that doesn't need a FAQ.

Most agreed that either of the rout moves was okay. But presumably it was a friendly game with no umpire and the choice made a difference - hence the question. So roll a dice or flip a coin.

As has been noted elsewhere there is a real danger that the FAQ could end up bigger than the rules if you try to address every conceivable issue.

Pete

Well without going into details of a specific circumstance, the poster at the beginning of this thread was the umpire making a ruling and asking for an opinion ex post on their ruling.

I think there is a a legitimate grey understanding of directly away and all that. Now I can see someone saying the grey is an unwillingness to read the rules clearly.

But since one of the results of the rules is that where units break bad things happen and the owner has less control over where things go, it would be good to have a general understanding. And honestly the evade rules are probably the most referenced section because they are invovled in routs as well so getting clarity is helpful in how the authors approach stuff.

The rules don't define exactly what is meant by "directly away from enemy in contact" nor do they prescribe how to adjust the direction onto the whatever direction that is.

This means it is up to the discretion of the player who owns the routing troops. As long as he does something that could reasonably be described as "directly away", then he is within the meaning and spirit of the rules.

If people want a stricter rule, then I would suggest that you make it the move that maximises the shortest distance between the routers and the pursuers.

lawrenceg wrote:
This means it is up to the discretion of the player who owns the routing troops. As long as he does something that could reasonably be described as "directly away", then he is within the meaning and spirit of the rules.

That is just asking for a nightmare.

the move that maximises the shortest distance

The move that gets 'em as far away from the bad guys as they can be, OK?

Ahh, that would be maximising the distance

philqw78 wrote:Ahh, that would be maximising the distance

Yes it would. However, someone might find the two points on the BGs which are furthest apart, and try to maximise that distance.

"Directly away" means directly away, but people still seem to want additional clarification.

philqw78 wrote:

the move that maximises the shortest distance

The ghost of Dubya

petedalby wrote:IMO this is another rare situation that doesn't need a FAQ.

Most agreed that either of the rout moves was okay. But presumably it was a friendly game with no umpire and the choice made a difference - hence the question. So roll a dice or flip a coin.

As has been noted elsewhere there is a real danger that the FAQ could end up bigger than the rules if you try to address every conceivable issue.

Pete

I think is the opposite - one of the few cases where it would be useful. As the original poster explained depending on the way it was done another BG may have been burst through and I suspect that this scenario could crop up reasonably often.

FAQ should be nice and short as well

This discussion is not about the rules is it? It is about the meaning of words. 'Directly away' from something means at right angles to the edge of that object. The FAQ ought not to be an English dictionary.

rogerg wrote:This discussion is not about the rules is it? It is about the meaning of words. 'Directly away' from something means at right angles to the edge of that object.

Not if the nearest point is a corner.