Slitherine

In the above picture the cavalry with the dark bases are fragmented. The LH on the left (split to show the direction of charge) charged them and angled their charge to get the cav, if they routed, to burst through the elephants behind. The cav routed when taking a cohesion test. The question is do the rout away from the INTENDED direction of charge as shown by the red/white stick or directly away from the current postion of the LH so through the available gap?

I had always played it that they rout in the direction of the stick. But rereading it, it says "directly away from" the enemy that are charging them. Not very clear is it? I think perhaps that they might actually rout straight forwards as this is directly away from the LH in the sense that it puts the most distance between the two.

I had always played it that they rout in the direction of the stick.

Me, too. Routing and evading follow pretty much the same rules as stated in the Impact, Combat Mechanism, and JAP sections. They must evade in the direction of the charge if flank or rear. So this 'shouldn't' be any different.

On the other hand, the sequence of play suggests a different solution. You declare a charge on fragmented, they test for being charged and fail. They make a rout move. At this point, you don't have to indicate the direction of the charge. So you could argue to rout directly away from the initial position of the chargers. Now change this a little, let's move the LH down in the picture so that if they charge straight ahead they would miss the dark based cav (and pretend the other LH BG is not there or is friendly). Now you would have to wheel to strike them and the direction of rout would clearly have to be in the direction of the charge on contact. So we are back to square one. They rout in the direction of the charge.

BTW, fwiw, I've read several posts by the authors that they declare charges and indicate charge direction immediately. The rules don't say that , but it plays better that way.

bbotus wrote:

I had always played it that they rout in the direction of the stick.

Me, too. Routing and evading follow pretty much the same rules as stated in the Impact, Combat Mechanism, and JAP sections. They must evade in the direction of the charge if flank or rear. So this 'shouldn't' be any different.

Well, to be specific, rout follows it's own rules, some of which say "do it the same as evading". However, this is not one of them. So what the evade rules say isn't relevant I'm afraid. I wish they were, as they make it clearer.

There are a lot of things that have been discovered to be unclear in the rules. In the absence of FAQs we are left to our own devices. I, for one, opt to keep it simple. I'm using a stick for the direction of the charge and rout accordingly.

P.S. Just found a thread that talked about this very issue. viewtopic.php?f=43&t=11345
It is author intent that routs be directly away from the direction of the charge. Here is part of the thread showing a cheese move if you don't use direction of charge.

Postby shall » 30 Jun 2009 21:10
The charge path is how I play this. For sure FRG troops can be a bit of a liability therefore.

Also how would you deal with a BG charging FRG and wheeling massively to do do so otherwise? At the beginning it may not even be facing towards the target BG. This creates massive cheddar!!

Consider this ... a BG facing 90 degrees from the charge direction and parallel to the front of the BG to be charged, charges FRG troops in the middle ofa line. The chargers will wheel 90 and charge directly at the FRG. Surely in this case you want the FRG troops to flee to their rear.

In your implied alternative you would be saying the FRG troops would rout sideways 90 degrees which would be bizarre - and much more likely through lots of friends? inthe rpocess thereby creating lots of the cheese you are worryign about.

Hope that helps.

Si

Good find bbotus. Shame that this didn't find it's way into the FAQ. It's a simple "a or b" type case that we all just need to know how to do it.

bbotus wrote:P.S. Just found a thread that talked about this very issue. viewtopic.php?f=43&t=11345
It is author intent that routs be directly away from the direction of the charge. Here is part of the thread showing a cheese move if you don't use direction of charge.

Postby shall » 30 Jun 2009 21:10
The charge path is how I play this. For sure FRG troops can be a bit of a liability therefore.

Also how would you deal with a BG charging FRG and wheeling massively to do do so otherwise? At the beginning it may not even be facing towards the target BG. This creates massive cheddar!!

Consider this ... a BG facing 90 degrees from the charge direction and parallel to the front of the BG to be charged, charges FRG troops in the middle ofa line. The chargers will wheel 90 and charge directly at the FRG. Surely in this case you want the FRG troops to flee to their rear.

In your implied alternative you would be saying the FRG troops would rout sideways 90 degrees which would be bizarre - and much more likely through lots of friends? inthe rpocess thereby creating lots of the cheese you are worryign about.

Hope that helps.

Si

Well, I think I'll charge with a column and wheel it 89 degrees just before impact. Enemy rout int he direction of the charge, i.e. 1 degree short of to their flank. Job done.


The rule in the book is "directly away from the enemy charging".

In practice this means find the two points, one on the charging B and one on the breaking BG, which are closest together.

Join these two points with a line.

Rout direction is along this line.

lawrenceg wrote:The rule in the book is "directly away from the enemy charging".

In practice this means find the two points, one on the charging B and one on the breaking BG, which are closest together.
Join these two points with a line.
Rout direction is along this line.

Well I would certainly be fine if this was defined that clearly. However it is not. "In practice" I have never seen it ruled that way.

In this scenario, though the Light Horse wheeled in the middle of their move and not the start.

The Cavalry failed their test and routed - so flinched before the charge in effect. They therefore move directly away from the troops charging - irrelevant of the direction of charge - they move away from the chargers.

dave_r wrote:In this scenario, though the Light Horse wheeled in the middle of their move and not the start.

The Cavalry failed their test and routed - so flinched before the charge in effect. They therefore move directly away from the troops charging - irrelevant of the direction of charge - they mvoe away from the routers.

The routers move away from the routers?

hazelbark wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:The rule in the book is "directly away from the enemy charging".

In practice this means find the two points, one on the charging B and one on the breaking BG, which are closest together.
Join these two points with a line.
Rout direction is along this line.

Well I would certainly be fine if this was defined that clearly. However it is not. "In practice" I have never seen it ruled that way.

I suspect in most cases the rout direction is not controversial, and when it is, if earlier posters (apart from DR) are anything to go by, everyone thinks it is the direction of the charge, so they rule some interpretation of that and don't check what the rules actually say.

Now it's been pointed out, umpires can rule it that way.

Hopefully it will be clarified in V2.

Well, I think I'll charge with a column and wheel it 89 degrees just before impact. Enemy rout int he direction of the charge, i.e. 1 degree short of to their flank. Job done.

Oh, good. If you are going to advance on me, I'd like you to be in column. That way I should get at least 1 overlap on the first melee.

No matter how anyone writes a set of rules, there will be some issues since this is not real time (and can't be). Overall, I think this rule set is fun to play. I have no objection to being allowed to wheel when charging as it allows you to optimize the direction of charge within limits. If you can engineer a charge against me to hurt more than one unit, then (1) I'm already in trouble, or (2) I've deployed poorly compared to your deployment. Either way, you deserve to take advantage.

And, if you don't want the BG to wheel and charge you, then you have the option of moving your BG up to a gnat's todger of the enemy. They can only wheel up to the point where they would contact you if you don't evade, which would basically be straight ahead.

P.S. I'm not really sure what a gnat's todger is. Don't think we have them this far West. Maybe they flourish in the fog?

It's painful but I'm going to agree with Dave here.

P101 states that the BG moves directly away from the chargers.

P61 states that this happens before the chargers have moved.

So I'd interpret that as directly away from their current position, not where they might be after some theoretical wheel.

bbotus wrote:

Well, I think I'll charge with a column and wheel it 89 degrees just before impact. Enemy rout int he direction of the charge, i.e. 1 degree short of to their flank. Job done.

Oh, good. If you are going to advance on me, I'd like you to be in column. That way I should get at least 1 overlap on the first melee.

Assuming you survive the CT for being charged while fragmented and the probable CT for losing the impact with half dice.

Anyway, a 2x2 of mounted troops can still wheel more than 45 degrees away from a straight on frontal charge, which should be enough to put the rout through the neighbouring BG.

No matter how anyone writes a set of rules, there will be some issues since this is not real time (and can't be). Overall, I think this rule set is fun to play. I have no objection to being allowed to wheel when charging as it allows you to optimize the direction of charge within limits. If you can engineer a charge against me to hurt more than one unit, then (1) I'm already in trouble, or (2) I've deployed poorly compared to your deployment. Either way, you deserve to take advantage.

Yes, but would swerving at the last second before impact to control the rout direction be historically plausible?

And, if you don't want the BG to wheel and charge you, then you have the option of moving your BG up to a gnat's todger of the enemy. They can only wheel up to the point where they would contact you if you don't evade, which would basically be straight ahead.

This makes a number of assumptions, including: You pass your CMT to advace while fragged; My charging column is starting almost within your move distance and is not LH 6 or 7 MU away from, e.g. your HF; I have no other BG closer to yours blocking its advance...

P.S. I'm not really sure what a gnat's todger is.

A gnat is a small mosquito.



A todger is a penis

Don't think we have them this far West.

I couldn't possibly comment.



Anyway, it is all moot as you rout directly away from the chargers at the start of their charge, not in the direction of charge.

dave_r wrote:In this scenario, though the Light Horse wheeled in the middle of their move and not the start.

The Cavalry failed their test and routed - so flinched before the charge in effect. They therefore move directly away from the troops charging - irrelevant of the direction of charge - they move away from the chargers.

So are you saying if the chargers wheeled at the beginning of their charge then the routers would run in a different direction than if the chargers wheeled midway?

It's painful but I'm going to agree with Dave here.

Yes, but would swerving at the last second before impact to control the rout direction be historically plausible?

So you guys are disregarding the intent of the authors and going with the ruling that would force a fragged BG in the middle of a battle line to rout at 90 degrees of facing though the battle line because the charger was facing right or left of the battle line when the charge was declared?

As for historically plausible, such an argument is not valid. The best rule system I've ever seen that represents real life would be Advanced Squad Leader and that system is just too complicated to be playable in an evening. Everything in any rule system is a compromise between realism and playability. And, no matter what example you bring up to support your idea, there will be a counter example. So that puts us back to square one.

Personally, author intent works as well as anything else. If a really great idea comes up, it will be very obvious. In the meantime, let's not get lost in the details.

P.S. Can you tell that I've been though a lot of rule changes because someone did a little research and decided that the rules didn't reflect the results of a certain battle? All those rule changes helped neither playability nor realism.

bbotus wrote:

It's painful but I'm going to agree with Dave here.

Yes, but would swerving at the last second before impact to control the rout direction be historically plausible?

So you guys are disregarding the intent of the authors and going with the ruling that would force a fragged BG in the middle of a battle line to rout at 90 degrees of facing though the battle line because the charger was facing right or left of the battle line when the charge was declared?

No, we are saying the routers rout directly away from the chargers, at the start of their charge, (i.e. the chargers' initial position) regardless of which direction they (the chargers) are facing (or will be facing later on in the charge). Which is what the rules say, and apparently is the authors' intent (otherwise, why would they have said it?).

No, we are saying the routers rout directly away from the chargers, at the start of their charge, (i.e. the chargers' initial position) regardless of which direction they (the chargers) are facing (or will be facing later on in the charge).

Well, that sounds playable, too. I actually might like it played that way but that doesn't appear to be author intent based on the thread posted above. How is it played at the tournaments you go to?

bbotus wrote:

No, we are saying the routers rout directly away from the chargers, at the start of their charge, (i.e. the chargers' initial position) regardless of which direction they (the chargers) are facing (or will be facing later on in the charge).

Well, that sounds playable, too. I actually might like it played that way but that doesn't appear to be author intent based on the thread posted above. How is it played at the tournaments you go to?

I mostly play DBMM for tournaments and I can't recall any controversial routs due to failing to stand a charge in my FOG tournament games.

There was one game where i had a bg break after impact combat. The opponent had wheeled 45 degrees just prior to impact and insisted I rout in the direction he was facing. When BGs are in contact, "directly away" is a bit harder to interpret.

IMO it ought to be the maximum value of dy/dx, where y is the shortest distance from the moving BG to the BG it is moving directly away from and x is the distance moved. Working that out on the table may not be that easy, but I havent given it much thought so it might not be that hard either.

One thing i particularly don't like is when you have to turn 90 and wheel onto the direction. Then the tail of the column does not move directly away, it moves in the original flankward direction, which makes it much easier to catch.