Slitherine

Hi All,

A long time ago I played a game where one of my units ended up breaking and routing whilst at an angle of about 45 degrees to the base edge.

My friend and I worked out that you actually 'get closer' to the base edge by continuing along a line 45 degrees from the base edge than 'wasting movement' by wheeling. In the sense that, if you need to wheel 2" to end up square to the base edge you are further away from the base edge than if you'd kept going straight.

Interesting.

Ian

Clever point. If it's not the shortest path to the base edge but simply moving in some direction toward it and having each move get as close to it as possible, then you stay on table more turns by routing diagonally.

MikeK wrote:Clever point. If it's not the shortest path to the base edge but simply moving in some direction toward it and having each move get as close to it as possible, then you stay on table more turns by routing diagonally.

That's right. You stay on the table longer because the distance is longer, but you ALWAYS get closer to the base edge (turn by turn) by not wheeling.

If I were to suggest a rule change, I would say that the rout should be measured from the closest point the BG is to their own base edge and move directly toward that base edge as 'unformed movement'. This point becoming the BG's new front edge. The troops running for their lives are hardly going to ensure their wheel is keeping a nice straight line. It would mean that you move further, but that's not altogether unrealistic either.

Ian

I think this and example where what the writers meant and what they wrote might be a bit different. As written it is indeed as you say and introduces some unrequired measuring fiddlyness

grahambriggs wrote:I think this and example where what the writers meant and what they wrote might be a bit different. As written it is indeed as you say and introduces some unrequired measuring fiddlyness

I did think so, that they should wheel to the shortest route to the base, but in the other routing thread it is emphasized that the rule does not include "directly" and that "closest" controls.

IIRC doesn't it say wheel _OR TURN_ towards base edge.. .Don't have the rules nearby, but seem to remember if wheeling would take longer than a turn, do the later...


Madcam.

smells like cheese to me

Pete

petedalby wrote:smells like cheese to me

Pete

Yeah, and I hate comments like this. Saying 'it smells like cheese to me' is read by me as an accusation of me trying to do something in the rules that aren't intended. Well, it's quite explicit:

p100

If a battle group breaks in other circumstances, it routs towards its side's rear table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropraiate to end its move as close to the rear table edge as possible."

So, if your BG's front edge is at 45 degrees to the rear edge when you break the bg will get closer to the base edge by going directly to its own rear. Do the maths if you don't believe me, but its true.

Madcam's solution isn't any better as if you turn 90degrees from 45 degrees you're still facing 45 degrees from the base edge.

So, rather than make some comment like 'it smells like cheese to me' why don't you read the rules and try to work out a solution to it as I have here:

If I were to suggest a rule change, I would say that the rout should be measured from the closest point the BG is to their own base edge and move directly toward that base edge as 'unformed movement'. This point becoming the BG's new front edge.

Trying to comply to the rules as written is HARDLY cheating, which is to me exactly what cheese is.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:If I were to suggest a rule change, I would say that the rout should be measured from the closest point the BG is to their own base edge and move directly toward that base edge as 'unformed movement'. This point becoming the BG's new front edge.

A free wheel benefits the router relative to its pursuers, who must pay for their wheel.

I'd prefer something that makes the routers wheel to face the baseline and head that way if possible. That said, no brief but clear language comes to mind.

MikeK wrote:

DaiSho wrote:If I were to suggest a rule change, I would say that the rout should be measured from the closest point the BG is to their own base edge and move directly toward that base edge as 'unformed movement'. This point becoming the BG's new front edge.

A free wheel benefits the router relative to its pursuers, who must pay for their wheel.

I'd prefer something that makes the routers wheel to face the baseline and head that way if possible. That said, no brief but clear language comes to mind.

Yeah, Mike, I hear what you're saying, but in reality troops who are running for their lives are going to move a LOT faster than troops who have to maintain a shieldwall (for example). Additionally, the 'free wheel' isn't THAT big a deal in the sense that the pursuit only has to touch those routing to count as contacted, who then form up on the routers during the manouver phase.

DaiSho wrote:
Trying to comply to the rules as written is HARDLY cheating, which is to me exactly what cheese is.

Ian

Nope, cheese is playing within the rules but exploiting wording/lack of clarity, etc. to obtain unintentded consequences that are to you advantage. Cheating is just breaking the rules. Your rout move is cheese.

nikgaukroger wrote:

DaiSho wrote:
Trying to comply to the rules as written is HARDLY cheating, which is to me exactly what cheese is.

Ian

Nope, cheese is playing within the rules but exploiting wording/lack of clarity, etc. to obtain unintentded consequences that are to you advantage. Cheating is just breaking the rules. Your rout move is cheese.

So, you want me to BREAK the rules so it appears less cheesy?

If I wheel, I end up further away from the base line than I do if I move directly to the rear. It's not my fault that the rules didn't take into account mathematics.

Ian

Be fair to Daisho.

Yesterday I thought routers should head directly back towards the baseline, but Terry has said in the JAP Routing thread

terrys wrote:Broken troops not in contact with enemy make a normal distance move towards their side's table edge, making wheels and/or turns as appropriate to end their move as close to the rear table edge as possible.
.....The rule doesn't say 'directly' towards. The most important part of this rule is the 'as close to' part.

which confirms and reinforces the geometric imperative that Daisho noted. Not an satisfactory result in either thread.


_____________________________________________________________________

"Listen, son - it may be sleazy, unfair and unconstitutional, but it's the law."

Yeah, and I hate comments like this.

Sorry if I've offended you.

As Nik has already noted cheese isn't cheating.

As with so many examples - presumably this is only an issue if the BG is routing at exactly 45 degrees - and the opportunity to wring some advantage from it is pretty slim.

So personally I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Pete

petedalby wrote:As with so many examples - presumably this is only an issue if the BG is routing at exactly 45 degrees - and the opportunity to wring some advantage from it is pretty slim.

Well, no, at any angle actually, so so long as it is less than 45 degrees, and THEN if it is greater than 45 degrees is only true until the wheel gets to 45 degrees.

SO, if you have an enemy BG coming around your flank and you contact them at exactly 90 degrees to the base edge (in other words running along parallel to the base edge) and then EITHER of you rout, the router will wheel until he reaches the 45 degree mark and then go directly forward.

Consider this. Unless you are exactly 100% perpendicular to the base edge you have to wheel if you want to get perpendicular to the base edge. That means that the corner that the wheel is wheeling on isn't moving. Thus, even if you only are wheeling 0.0001 of an MU you would be 0.0001MU's closer to the base edge if you went straight rather than wheeling.

In essence, it's going to happen in every rout that isn't exactly perpendicular to the base edge.

I just happened to use 45 degrees as the example.

Ian

DaiSho wrote:In essence, it's going to happen in every rout that isn't exactly perpendicular to the base edge.

I envy those in happy ignorance of such facts.

MikeK wrote:

DaiSho wrote:In essence, it's going to happen in every rout that isn't exactly perpendicular to the base edge.

I envy those in happy ignorance of such facts.

Hey, I don't think it's that big a deal. It's not like you'll double the time that you're staying on the table or anything. You might get an extra turn maybe, but it is likely you'll disappear off the edge of the table and get caught in the carpet pile at the same time as any other rout move.

Consider this: You're a 6 base Heavy Foot Battle Group 12" forward from the base edge when you rout at an angle of 45 degrees.

The distance you travel if you maintain the 45 degrees (in other words turn around and go straight) is just under 17", or at 3MU's per turn, 6 turns of movement.

The distance you travel if you wheel around the 45 degrees so that you're line of travel is exactly perpendicular to the base edge is just over 15", or 6 turns of movement.

So I'm cheesily using the rules to stay on the table exactly zero extra turns.

I'm sure there are examples where this wouldn't be true, and I'm sure the further away from the base edge the factors would increase.

The thing is that I don't like being accused of using cheesy tactics because I note a mathamatical anomaly to the intent of the rules.

The way the rules are written it makes it pretty clear that the intent was to have the BG's moving directly toward the base edge in a line which runs perpendicular to the base edge, but the wording makes this impossible.

I personally think that base edges are way over-rated. Routers would go 'away from the bad guys'. They don't get out survey teams to work out the invisible line of the arc of the great circle so they know the location of their invisible base edge. They run for their cowardly lives. In game terms they run until they get off the table. I think you should be able to rout of any base edge and only wheel to avoid things that would make getting off the table appreciably slower (slowing terrain or going through troops). Why would routers wheel around to face something that doesn't exist in the real world and thus decrease the distance they move from the guys with the dirty big axes? What's more, troops should rout as LF if foot and LH if mounted. Keeping formation is a lost consideration. They're getting the hell out of dodge. The writers don't want to do that, and that's fine, but without rules for 'unformed movement' you're going to get weirdness.

Ian

I think the way the rules are written brings about a peculiar outcome. Probably one that wasn't intentioned. But just because you do not agree with something does not make it cheesy. And if you don't have to head directly to your base line immediately once out of contact going at an angle is what the rule says you should do. This brings up things like Hammy's post on the trapped router.

philqw78 wrote:I think the way the rules are written brings about a peculiar outcome. Probably one that wasn't intentioned.

Diagonal routers seem so wrong on the table, particularly when they bounce off the edges.

philqw78 wrote: And if you don't have to head directly to your base line immediately once out of contact going at an angle is what the rule says you should do. This brings up things like Hammy's post on the trapped router.

There the router escaping laterally is for me the problem.

Diagonal routers seem so wrong on the table, particularly when they bounce off the edges

Only evaders can bounce off side and enemy rear table edge. Routers go off any table edge they touch. So in some circumstances this may get routers off faster