Routing: which way?

[Hannibal]

In our game last night we had a situation come up where we couldn't determine the direction a unit routs.

Here's the setup: 


My Libyans have been flank charged by the Abomination.  The Libyans are facing the short side of the table, with their table edge being towards the bottom of the pic.  So the Abomination is between the Libyans and their table edge.

So Libyans fail their Rout check and the Abomination doesn't do any damage.  They turn to face away from the enemy they are fighting:




Now the Libyans rout.  So our first question is, do they turn back to their original facing and rout
 


or do they rout from their new facing (of away from an engaged enemy)?



Okay, next question:  which direction do they rout?  Here's what we found in the rules:

2.5 Rout Movement
After all free attacks and second rout checks, each unit routed this phase moves. (See 1.4.7.6). If, after this movement, the routing unit is still engaged with one or more enemy units, the routing unit is destroyed.

On the turn it routs from an engagement, a unit will move to maximize the space between it and the enemy unit(s) with which it was engaged.

and...

1.4.7.6 Routing Units
During your movement and command phase, any unit you fail to rally (1.3.2.5) takes a rout move as described below. Rout moves taken at other times, for example in the courage phase, follow these same rules.

Whenever a routing unit moves, it moves towards its owner’s table edge at full movement. You can’t invoke the Indirect Path rule or other voluntary movement rules for this move, so your unit will not avoid difficult terrain or friendly units. You must still observe mandatory movement rules like the Impossible Path rule.

Whenever you move a routing unit, you don’t pay for maneuvers; simply measure from the front center point of the routing unit to the location it is routing to, and pick up and move the routing unit.

It seems these two rules directly contradict each other in this case.  For example, 1.4.7.6 says "Whenever a routing unit moves, it moves towards its owner’s table edge at full movement." while 2.5 says "On the turn it routs from an engagement, a unit will move to maximize the space between it and the enemy unit(s) with which it was engaged."

Unless I'm missing something, there's no way that the Libyans can simultaneously maximize the space between it and the enemy unit while at the same time move towards its table edge.  Which one takes priority?

Is it rout away:


or is it rout towards your table edge using one of the two examples from above:



The next question that came up was that we couldn't find any reference to how units react to enemy units.  I know I've read in there that you don't move in contact with enemy units, but I couldn't find it.  So when I checked the reference in 1.4.7.6, I noticed the part that says: "You can’t invoke the Indirect Path rule or other voluntary movement rules for this move, so your unit will not avoid difficult terrain or friendly units. You must still observe mandatory movement rules like the Impossible Path rule."


So I looked up both rules:

1.4.7.2 Indirect Path
Sometimes the direct path to an enemy unit isn’t the fastest. This can happen because of other units (friendly or enemy) in the way, or because of difficult terrain that would slow the unit’s movement if it moved straight ahead. In this case, without spending a command action, you can choose whether the unit moves along the direct route (as far as possible, stopping at obstructing units) or the current fastest route.

Okay, so you invoke Indirect Path when there is (among other things) an enemy in the way.  But you ignore Indirect Path for routing units.  Onto Impossible Path:

1.4.7.3 Impossible Path
If the otherwise optimal path for a unit to take under orders is permanently impossible (most likely due to terrain) that unit must use the shortest clear path instead.

So no mention here of enemy units being part of the Impossible Path.  I know its being pedantic, but there is actually no reference that we could find that says you move around enemy units when Routing.  And I've been wrong about things as the editions have evolved before so I seriously don't know if this is an oversight or an intentional part of the rules.

And there is an argument that the unit does in fact ignore the enemy units when it routs, supported by this clause:  "Whenever you move a routing unit, you don’t pay for maneuvers; simply measure from the front center point of the routing unit to the location it is routing to, and pick up and move the routing unit." 

Which would result in:


I had always interpreted that as you ignore maneuvers in getting around enemy units, in something like so:





Finally, we had a question is about this statement:  "If, after this movement, the routing unit is still engaged with one or more enemy units, the routing unit is destroyed."  I'm assuming you have to meet the full qualifications for being engaged, correct?  Meaning that a unit must be touching half of his side with half of your side.  Or is this intended to be if any part is touching?  Also, does a unit that has its rout move halted because an enemy unit is in the path of his rout count as being engaged?

So if either of these is the correct rout procedure:
 

Would that count as "engaged" and thus the Libyans are destroyed?


And what if the Libyans had their move halted by routing into an enemy unit:


Assume for a second this is the correct rout distance and the Libyans had just enough move to take them in contact but not enough to shoot that gap.  Basically assume they only have 3.4" of space to run while still moving towards their table edge before contact an enemy unit.  Do the Libyans stop?  Or are they counted as engaged and are picked up?


Thanks in advance!

[gull2112]

This is a great question for the simple reason that it shows we need to clean up the language. I'm with Hannibal in not being sure what the correct move would be. I know how lazyj and I would handle it, but that's immaterial, just like I'm sure you guys came up with something and didn't just get hung up with a "blue screen of death" epic fail.

[Niko White]

Yeah, rout moves in general are an area that needs cleaning up.

Right now, my interpretation would be that:

A) the specific instruction overrides the general, so on the initial rout move they go directly away from the abomination, then on subsequent moves they go directly towards their table edge.

B) they won't maneuver around enemy units (you correctly identify that as part of indirect path) but will not engage an enemy unit because they won't final rush.

C) the clause where they remain engaged will happen so rarely it might not even be worth including due to the potential confusion. By my identification because of the tiny gap rule and free maneuver thing, it should only come up when a unit is totally surrounded, horribly bogged down in terrain, or sandwiched and slow.

Note a lot of these rules predate the v3 rules in general substance, so these are my interpretations but I can't speak 100% to original intent.

[Hannibal]

A) the specific instruction overrides the general, so on the initial rout move they go directly away from the abomination, then on subsequent moves they go directly towards their table edge.

Rules as Written, that interpretation is a good one IMO, but would it be possible to move to the front burner an errata to prevent this?  For simplicity's sake, I think it'd be better if there was just one direction the unit moved (away from the enemy or towards you board edge) and just have them rout that way all the time.  The idea of having them go one way on the first turn and another way afterwards doesn't add any depth to the game in my mind, and strikes me as needless complexity.

And while either choice (board edge or away from enemy) will produce strange results from time to time, I don't think it'd be any stranger than this case where the Libyans would run away from the enemy unit and then turn around and run back towards them.  So if any idea can produce wacky results, I say go for the simple one as, if nothing else, its easier to remember.

B) they won't maneuver around enemy units (you correctly identify that as part of indirect path) but will not engage an enemy unit because they won't final rush.

Wait, so what will they do?  Do they just move in a straight line and stop whenever they touch an enemy?

C) the clause where they remain engaged will happen so rarely it might not even be worth including due to the potential confusion. By my identification because of the tiny gap rule and free maneuver thing, it should only come up when a unit is totally surrounded, horribly bogged down in terrain, or sandwiched and slow.

So in the case of:

they are not engaged, correct?

[elgin_j]

The simple answer might be allowing the player to rout his unit in whatsoever direction he wanted in the first instance, before then reverting to the rule guiding them to your own table edge.  There are few instances where you actively wish for a unit to be destroyed, which thematically fits with the unit not wanting to die.

[Niko White]

I actually think the current rule (as I've interpreted it) makes, broadly, a good amount of sense.  If you rout towards your table edge on the first turn then the only situation where you move in a reasonable way is the one where the enemy is on their original line, which IMO results in too many weird situations.  And if you rout away from the enemy (either original or nearest) every subsequent turn, you end up with weird stuff if no enemy is particularly nearby or if the original enemy moves in weird ways and so forth.  Given how rarely anyone makes a second rout move, I think clarifying the current situation and then leaving it alone is probably for the best.  (Letting the player rout in any direction on the initial rout seems bad to me because it is way too easy to game it; in most cases you'll throw it where it is most disruptive to the enemy, rather than where it is likely to be safe.)

For the specifics:

-I think they will indeed move in a line and stop when hitting enemies.

-Your example looks like it is unengaged.  The reason that clause is unclear is that since engagements are only the result of final rushes, the only case where a unit should rout and be immediately picked up is when it has literally nowhere to go, so can't break an existing engagement.

[Hannibal]

It strikes me as needlessly complex, because the majority of times that I see someone rout and not be popped by Free Attacks is when a unit is pinched and flubbed the Pre-Combat roll (Usually if the unit survives its because it had a lot of health boxes left).  But now which way does the unit run?  Do we have to start bissecting angles to determine the direction of rout?

It does seem a little weird to rout towards your table edge in some situations, but I'd personally be okay with it because its simple and the game already makes a good number of abstractions.  Then you follow the same rule every single rout move:  towards your table edge, going around enemy units like impassible terrain (but not paying for maneuvers), stopping if you can't.

Your example looks like it is unengaged.  The reason that clause is unclear is that since engagements are only the result of final rushes,

That was my determination in-game, even though I couldn't find the relevant section in the rulebook.  Plus it made the game go from a 4-2 to a 3-3, so I didn't want to rule the way that happened to be favorable to me.

the only case where a unit should rout and be immediately picked up is when it has literally nowhere to go, so can't break an existing engagement.

That is a more succinct and better definition than is in the rulebook.


As an aside, I never would've gotten to the 'specific vs general' rules determination you mentioned, simply because the rout rules (1.4.7.6) say:  "During your movement and command phase, any unit you fail to rally (1.3.2.5) takes a rout move as described below. Rout moves taken at other times, for example in the courage phase, follow these same rules."

I took it to mean, that the first turn follows 1.4.7.6 and the requirements for the first turn.

[gull2112]

It would seem to me that the simplest rule would bwe for the unit to move towards its board edge using the indirect path rule it necessary and if the unit could not move anywhere legally, it is eliminated.

Now obviously, for rules purposes this would have to be more detailed, but that would be the general intent. In situations that arise because of game turn mechanics the unit shouldn't be arbitrarily eliminated, but in cases where they arise because of movement mechanics the unit should cease to function and be eliminated. When the combatants start yelling "Run away!!!" in Monty Python fashion, where to run should be pretty clear, and if it is not, then the unit would likely cease to function coherently. Stragglers might write of heroic escapes, but as far as the battle is concerned, their participation is over.

[Niko White]

The problem there though is that I don't really think a unit should fail to run correctly if it got attacked oriented against its board edge.  It seems pretty weird to me that a unit should rout and then not run basically away from the unit that routed it.  (Even leaving aside how weird the board edge thing can be in different scenarios, like Ambush or Trap out of the Kingdoms deck.)

[Hannibal]

It seems pretty weird to me that a unit should rout and then not run basically away from the unit that routed it.

Like I said, it's abstracted, just like damage isn't linked to number of guys, but represents disrupted cohesion as much as casualties caused.  To me it seems needlessly complex for something that won't happen often.  The flip side, which is why I shrug it off, is it's not going to happen terribly often.

Although thinking about it, routing away taking precedence is probably going to have game effects because while hitting someone in the rear (with your unit between his and the board edge) is going to be rare, hitting someone in the flank certainly isn't.  And now you're making a guy run sideways along the long axis of the board as opposed to back towards his camp (which is usually what "flee towards your table edge" is usually based on).  Not per se objecting to it, but it is a fairly big change from how I've played it.

(Even leaving aside how weird the board edge thing can be in different scenarios, like Ambush or Trap out of the Kingdoms deck.)

well yeah, but even with your official interpretation (and before it) that was a problem.  Although probably solved because even in Ambush or Trap there is a DZ designated on the map board as the defender's, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the defender's units rout towards that board edge.

[Niko White]

Right, it isn't impossible to work out for Ambush or Trap, but it can be really awkward because a) you often have to look at the card to figure it out and b) you'll have initial engagements happening on both sides so some number of guys would rout and then promptly run directly towards the guy they were fighting.

[Hannibal]

As opposed to running away, and then turning right around and running back towards them?   

This reminds me a Simpsons episode where they do a fire drill and during the panic there's this one guy running in circles yelling "Firefirefire!"

[Niko White]

I agree it isn't ideal, but the initial rout movement just happens way more often than the second, between rallying and the chance that you get caught because you routed on the wrong turn.

[Hannibal]

Sure, and you're going to have weird situations in either case.  I was just poking fun.

OOC, is this the way you played?  Because I know then that we've been playing it wrong for when a unit is hit in the flank, where it should run "in" along the long axis of the table and not "back" towards its own board edge.  I haven't really paid a whole lot of attention to it, but I have concerns that doing that may have unforeseen consequences (not specific concerns, just a general 'huh, what will that mean' feeling).  If you've played it that way and haven't had any problems, that'd allay those concerns.


Edit:  one thing that my friend felt would be appropriate is that if you run into an enemy unit while you're routing you're destroyed.  So in that case, you rout in a straight line towards your table edge.  If that means the enemy you're fleeing is between you and your table edge, pick up the unit, it's toast.  That's a real severe rule, but it'd at least solve this "firefirefire!" thing.

[Niko White]

Yeah this is how I've played for quite a while.  I've always had them run from the unit they were fighting on the initial rout move, and actually had the opposite revelation a few years ago when I re-read the rules and found out they just didn't always flee along whatever vector they started on.  (Which had reasonable results but is probably impractical.)