If he would point out where he thinks it is covered, I would be happy to accept that. And would willingly accept a cuff on the ears to be told how to understand it.nikgaukroger wrote: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.
JaP Routing Question
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
-
berthier
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier

- Posts: 782
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:01 am
- Location: Birmingham, Alabama
- Contact:
Having reread the section on Initial Rout and looking back at the pictures that Mark posted along with my fuzzy recollection from the Team Tournament, if we follow the consensus is the routers move as evaders, then I would think the first mistake may have been made with not looking at p. 66 under Evade Moves in the Impact Phase. In this situation, the routers have to move in the direction of the charge. Per the left hand picture, the routers would have turned 90 degrees using the one of the backcorners to turn on and not one of the front corners. At that point, the unit would have wheeled to be moving parallel to the direction of the charge. This is also covered under the 2nd bullet on the right hand side of page 66. The rule states that the unit turns and then wheels UNLESS its existing facing is closer to the direction of the charge. Because the unit was in contact in this case, I don't believe (and this is just my opinion) that a wheel from its initial position as the back of the unit would have by necessity wheeled through the enemy unit. As Mark pointed out, this was after the melee phase so no conforming would take place as that is performed in the maneuver phase. Even though they are not in the picture and from my recollection, the friendly unit was positioned in such a way and close enough that they would have been burst through.
Having been at the table when Mark was asked to make a decision, I think he did the best he could at the time without using up critical seconds of random time. Heck, I read the rule too and did not see it.
Of course, the authors could say we are all wrong.
Christopher Anders
Having been at the table when Mark was asked to make a decision, I think he did the best he could at the time without using up critical seconds of random time. Heck, I read the rule too and did not see it.
Of course, the authors could say we are all wrong.
Christopher Anders
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier

- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
I totally agree that the ump made a call and that is that. The photos pasted above and your solution don't apply to that specific situation because it leaves the other units involved. I am not particularly interested for that past situation. But that the situation will come up in the future.berthier wrote: Having been at the table when Mark was asked to make a decision, I think he did the best he could at the time without using up critical seconds of random time. Heck, I read the rule too and did not see it.
I do think the directly away bit works fine one-on-one. The situation gets harder with mutliple units versus one and units break in confined space.