Initial Rout

[zoltan]

This one came up at Conquest (Christchurch, NZ) two weeks ago.

A BG is shot to broken by two enemy BGs shooting at it from different sides. The two enemy BGs form an "open jaw". The broken BG bisects the angle of the open jaw and routes away from both BGs, getting further away from both.

Change the open jaw to parallel; if the two shooting BGs have the enemy in a parallel "sandwich" one school of thought suggested that the router could no longer bisect the angle in order to get further away from both shooters, was therefore destroyed, and removed from the table because it was unable to do an initial rout move.

The opposing school of thought said off course you can bisect the angle; its called 90 degrees. The router simply routs along the face of both shooting BGs. The first school countered by saying that if the broken BG was a slow lumbering HF BG (especially if it threw a 1 or 2) that routed along the face of the shooters, it would not meet the initial rout requirement of getting further away from them as it would finish its rout move still in the parallel sandwich.

Of course if it was a snappy LH BG (or threw a 6) it would clear the parallel sandwich and end further away than it started. But is it allowed to make such a move?

How say you?

[SirGarnet]

The opposing school of thought said off course you can bisect the angle; its called 90 degrees. The router simply routs along the face of both shooting BGs.

That's how the Initial Rout rules read.

[grahambriggs]

The opposing school of thought said off course you can bisect the angle; its called 90 degrees. The router simply routs along the face of both shooting BGs.

That's how the Initial Rout rules read.

Yes, they'll rout at 90 degrees. The routing player may get the choice of which whether thaat is 90 degress left or right if there are no obstructions.

[zoltan]

OK, so as long as the routers TRY to move away from the shooters by their full move that's all that matters. If the routers end no further from the shooters than they started (by running along the face of the shooters) that does not matter.

[zoltan]

OK, a variation on my original question which related to initial routs.

Two LH BGs try to "sandwich" an enemy LH BG by moving up to 2 MUs away from it and exerting a restricted area, one to the enemy BG's front, the other to its rear. All 3 units are perfectly parrallel to each other.

In their next move the two BGs both declare charges (one is a rear charge). Does the sandwiched enemy BG turn 90 degrees (bisecting the angle of the parrallel chargers) and then move its VMD move in a straight line, or is it literally sandwiched and forced to receive both charges in situ?

If permitted to turn 90 degrees (bisecting the angle of the parallel chargers), this can have the seemingly perverse consequence of allowing the enemy BG a move distance advantage, as the chargers must spend valuable MUs wheeling to chase after it, thus reducing the distance travelled towards the evader.

[philqw78]

Yes, if charged from both directions it splits the angle. In your case squeezing out the middle by 90 turn then gaining a move advantage for free turn. The way around it is to only charge the rear. The evader then stopes one MU from the enemy in evade direction. Odd but simple.

[lawrenceg]

Yes, if charged from both directions it splits the angle. In your case squeezing out the middle by 90 turn then gaining a move advantage for free turn. The way around it is to only charge the rear. The evader then stopes one MU from the enemy in evade direction. Odd but simple.

As long as the troops in front pass there CMT not to charge.

[batesmotel]

Yes, if charged from both directions it splits the angle. In your case squeezing out the middle by 90 turn then gaining a move advantage for free turn. The way around it is to only charge the rear. The evader then stopes one MU from the enemy in evade direction. Odd but simple.

As long as the troops in front pass there CMT not to charge.

Both BGs in the example are LH, so the CMT isn't required in this case.

Chris

[deadtorius]

if charged from the rear the evade has to be directly away from the charger, if charged from the front it is either directly away from the charger or to their own rear, that would assume the charge was a little off angle from the target units direct front, owning players choice. since either evade in this situation would take it into contact with enemy I would assume no evade was possible so its game over for the LH. If rear charged only they drop cohesion for the rear charge, turn to face the enemy then leave their rear exposed to the other enemy that was out front and set up for a second rear charge next enemy turn.

as for the 90 degree rout, as long as the broken unit can turn 90 without contacting either shooting unit, keep in mind the new frontage after the turn, then they can rout. If the turn would cause them to contact either enemy then they are destroyed.

[zoltan]

if charged from the rear the evade has to be directly away from the charger, if charged from the front it is either directly away from the charger or to their own rear, that would assume the charge was a little off angle from the target units direct front, owning players choice. since either evade in this situation would take it into contact with enemy I would assume no evade was possible so its game over for the LH....

No, I don't think this is correct for the example given (parallel LH sandwich).

Evaders have two choices:
Option 1. Evade in the direction of the charge. If charged by more than one enemy, bisect the angle.

Option 2. Evade directly to their own rear except if charged in the flank or rear.

In the example, option 2 is not available to the charged BG due to a rear charge. However, it is entitled to bisect the angle under option 1. Having elected (Hobson's choice) to evade in the direction of the charge (bisecting the angle) the first thing the evader does is turn 90 degrees (page 66, column two). It then moves its full VMD in a straight line.

[bbotus]

deadtorius wrote:
if charged from the rear the evade has to be directly away from the charger, if charged from the front it is either directly away from the charger or to their own rear, that would assume the charge was a little off angle from the target units direct front, owning players choice. since either evade in this situation would take it into contact with enemy I would assume no evade was possible so its game over for the LH....



No, I don't think this is correct for the example given (parallel LH sandwich).

Evaders have two choices:
Option 1. Evade in the direction of the charge. If charged by more than one enemy, bisect the angle.

Except in this case only one BG is charging so the LH must either stand or evade directly away from the charge (everything being parallel). With only 1 BG charging, there is no angle to bisect. So in this case, if you charge the LH in the rear. They will evade 1MU and stop 1 MU from the non-charging BG since they won't be able to avoid that BG by shifting 1 base width. Then they get hit in the rear, drop one level and turn to fight. On your next turn, you can charge them in the rear with the other BG.

[hazelbark]

OK, so as long as the routers TRY to move away from the shooters by their full move that's all that matters. If the routers end no further from the shooters than they started (by running along the face of the shooters) that does not matter.

correct

[hazelbark]

The other thing to look for in these sitauations is what legal turn is permitted the troops breaking. IIRC they have to make a turn or they stay in place.

So in the first double shooters example. Lets say the target was HF in two ranks. The rear enemy shooter could have been so close (less than 10mm) so that when the unit breaks and wants to turn 90 degrees it can't. Then IIRC it stays in place and is removed at the end of the phase (not JAP phase, but phase of break)

[Albion1]

A sort of anomaly then with a combat sandwich.
The routing "meat" unit is able to turn 90 degrees and rout.
If one of the "bread" units is not actually in combat but say, 1/4 inch away, then the routers run into them and are destroyed. Doesn't seem right somehow.

[hazelbark]

A sort of anomaly then with a combat sandwich.
The routing "meat" unit is able to turn 90 degrees and rout.
If one of the "bread" units is not actually in combat but say, 1/4 inch away, then the routers run into them and are destroyed. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Seems right. Group panics encounters formed and formidable enemy. slaughter and dispersion ensue.

[ShrubMiK]

I agree it doesn't seem quite right - a little bit of a geometric/measuring oddity. But I don't think this one is particularly serious, I'm certainly not going to complain too much that I only routed the enemy rather than evaporating them. True the routing unit might recover and make the crucial contribution to my ultimate defeat once in a while, but it might also burst through further enemy units or at least get in their way and contrivbute to my ultimate victory.

[fatismo]

just a note, if the sandwitched LH is charged by only the opponent to its rear it has to evade in the direction of the charge. however evading units can turn and wheel as required to do this. therefore the sandwhiched unit can turn 90 degrees (assuming there is room) then wheel to the direction of the charge and evade, this in effect gets it past the unit in front of it. I know its used up alot of movement to do this and is likely to get caught if charger is a LH but what if its a HF.

This one comes up a bit in NZ with the argument that a 180 degree angle can't be bisected to give a single angle of evade, 179.999 degrees evades one way 180.00001 evades the other way. 180 degrees cant do this, so either no evade or evade in either direction. Would love fore the rule makers moderators to give their decision as the argument just goes round in circles

[fatismo]

ok i'll correct my self. The 90 or 180 turn cant be done because the evader is facing in the direction of the charge. But if hes smart he will turn 90 in his turn before the charge, both charges are now in his flank, whichever one charges can be evaded by evader wheeling.

[expendablecinc]

Important for the worlds and also just generally, an issue came up in last nights game which Ive had different opinions on.

When evading and needing to change frontage to avoid friends is there a contraction before the evade or do they just fall in behind the other ranks (IIRC fall in behind is the phrase in teh rules).

(asume that B cannot slide instead of change frontage due to table edge proximity)

IE

A = enemy chargers very close to B
B = target of charge
C = friends of B
! = table edge

AA!
AA!
BB!
BB!
C

1) does the left file of B fall in behind the right file as the right file evades?
or
2) does B have to change frontage before any move (which it cannot do) and hence have to burst through C. It would be a a shame if 2 was correct as its a geometric anomaly as well. When contracting to evade the BG would certainly not form a nice neat culumn first in order to fit through. They would clamour and just squeeze through like a fire at a football stadium. This would be slower so they would be more likely to get caught but that is already reflected to the increased depth of B's formation.

[gozerius]

Based on the wording " Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of bases that have been able to complete their evade move." I would say your first choice is correct. Move the file that is in the clear, then the blocked file filling in behind (if there is room to do this).