JaP Routing Question

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:14 pm

If the nearest point is a corner then we are discussing geometry. How about: 'in the direction of the line of the nearest point of the BG to the corner'? This is still not a discussion of the rules though.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:32 pm

rogerg wrote:If the nearest point is a corner then we are discussing geometry. How about: 'in the direction of the line of the nearest point of the BG to the corner'? This is still not a discussion of the rules though.

I think the point is, it is hard to define what "directly away from" means in terms of geometrical parameters and actions to be taken on the table, but in any given situation it is quite easy to see what could reasonably be considered as "directly away from". It is also difficult to come up with a prescriptive formula that will always give the most sensible rout path.

Hence the rule book uses that particular wording and relies on the players to apply it in a reasonable way.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:20 pm

We are agreed. It is just a matter of determining where the FAQ for rules stops and the use of English begins.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:19 pm

/me bangs head on desk repeatedly

Gentlemen, with all due respect and courtesy, is all this rules lawyering really absolutely necessary?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:22 pm

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:24 pm

And to expand - one very useful thing that comes of forums and mailing lists is that such issues are thrashed out here and not over the table and thus the actual games progress more smoothly. Also forums, etc. engender a common undertanding over the whole playing community.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:43 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:And to expand - one very useful thing that comes of forums and mailing lists is that such issues are thrashed out here and not over the table and thus the actual games progress more smoothly. Also forums, etc. engender a common undertanding over the whole playing community.

Absolutely. I would no more think of questioning that than questioning that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Surely every gamer understands that, and I don't think that politely objecting to extreme rules lawyering equates to questioning such basic fundamentals of online community.

I was just expressing some exasperation at the way this was descending into a lesson in Euclidean Geometry.

If you try to spell it all out in exhaustive detail, with rigid definitions for everything, there will come a case where that rigid definition contravenes common sense.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:03 pm

rogerg wrote:We are agreed. It is just a matter of determining where the FAQ for rules stops and the use of English begins.

If directly away via a wheel puts you in position 1 and directly away via an instant turn puts you in position 2, then people will alternate their interpretation for advantage causing recriminations.

I play where there is a club. There is a group who don't play at the club. A club exists 1 hour north. And many clubs go to events with in two hours. All will be happier to have a method other than recriminations.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:43 am

In reply to 'possum', what we are searching for is something that avoids the geometry lesson. We have established that the phrase 'directly away' is not one that gives us a common understanding. As 'Hazelbark' comments, when we meet players from other clubs, which happens about once a month in my case, it would be good to have a method we all understand.

The end result we are hoping for is a clarification of the phrase that we can all use. Through these discussions we will hopefully establish whether the problem occurs enough to make it worth a FAQ entry, the FAQ we want to keep as short as possible. We may not in fact get a suitable solution that the authors want to use. What we have established is that a problem exists. Any interested players who read this, particularly umpires, will be forwarned and be able to consider it before it happens on the table.

What's also really useful, is that as the new FoG rule sets are approaching beta testing we have good grounds for suggesting the phrase 'directly away' does not appear in them.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:59 am

But to go back to the original example, the umpire ruled that a turn was more appropriate than a wheel. This meant the routing BG would end further away from the pursuers.

This looks eminently sensible to me? The fact that it caused a complication with a potential burst through is IMO irrelevant.

A good call by the umpire.

Pete

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:11 pm

so far I have always played this as per evades. Sure they move "directly away from" but due to the reference to evade rules and in the absence of anything else do the 180 or 90 degree turn first prior to the wheel required to get directly away. Whichever gets them away fastest.

I think its the cleanest approach and it avoids dodgey BGs charged at an angle from doing a rather complex monster wheel before the route.

as an aside wouldnt the original BG in question miss the friendly BG anyway by sliding one base sideways and or contracting?

Anthony

hammy wrote:
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.

MkV · Post by **MkV** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:45 pm

expendablecinc wrote: as an aside wouldnt the original BG in question miss the friendly BG anyway by sliding one base sideways and or contracting?

Normally, yes, but not in the incident in question. The angles were such that there was a burst though, which dropped the unit a cohesion level; then a flank pursuit contact which fragmented the unit with an immediately following impact phase resolution. It didn't help that the whole thing happened in "random time" on the top table of the Team Tournament in what was a VERY close game.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:13 pm

Fantastic!

I still think the umpire made the right call.

Pete

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:32 pm

Is there going to be a FAQ on this at some point?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:45 pm

That's for others to decide but I can't see how you can FAQ 'directly away'?

It either is directly away or it's not.

Pete

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:22 pm

Do you instantly turn or wheel to get "directly away" is the FAQ definiation I would like.

Or as you (I think ) suggest do the method that puts the bases further away.

The issue is when you break and you go to the evade section so have suggested there are rules that could argue wheel away or could argue turn the base in place.

In this case I am not arguing the meaning of directly away. But directly away since the bases will be pointing in a new direction their is some variation in options. A FAQ would add consistentcy to what will otherwise be an umpire ruling everytime.

This isn't an issue when single front to front BGs break. But it does seem to matter when you are fighting in two direction or have people that you may flee through or break as a result of an impact charge on a rear corner etc.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:20 am

It is important to know whether "directly away" means getting the front base as far away from enemy as possible or the rear bases. That decision, I think, determines everything, especially the vexed question of whether routing (or, for that matter, evading) BG will be able to avoid friends.

It would also be nice to get some more guidance on how to deal with routing BGs who had been fighting in two directions.

Marc

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:49 am

At Usk Richard mentioned in an aside that he thought that the rules covered it, albeit maybe indirectly, so maybe going back and having a close read may be the way forward.

Of course he phased it differently

Lycanthropic · Post by **Lycanthropic** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:24 am

Just to throw in another "routs vs evades" question.
Can a routing BG form a single element wide column to avoid friends? (obstacle) AKA "avoid obstacles as evaders"?
Or is "obstacle" an impassable object?
The next tard to mention geometry gets the bash....with a rulebook.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:56 pm

Or as you (I think ) suggest do the method that puts the bases further away.

As you may either turn or wheel - and it's your choice which you use - I personally choose the one that will take me furthest away.

I'm guessing you only need an umpire's view in a situation like this one where one player is trying to wring the last drop of advantage from it - something which we'd all probably want to do - but where nothing else will be affected it's unlikely to arise as an issue?

Pete