View Full Version : TI Leader routing?
Can a TI leader rout with a broken unit?
Pertinent rules:
TI 4.8
Leader routing 10.711
Is routing really a form of movement?
TI counts as pinned with additional penalties (no shooting) so the leader would have to self-break to follow the squad. Or at least that's how I've played it. For the life of me I don't know where that's written down though... Probably a Q&A or Perry Sez.
TI counts as pinned with additional penalties (no shooting) so the leader would have to self-break to follow the squad. Or at least that's how I've played it. For the life of me I don't know where that's written down though... Probably a Q&A or Perry Sez.
We basically played the same way since it made no sense to do otherwise, however, the rules never state it as far as I can tell. Depends on what "move" means in the TI rules vs the rout rules.
I only posted on here because I was amazed I had not seen it on here before.
Melvin Falk
01 Mar 08, 06:27
-------------------------
hershmeister
01 Mar 08, 10:35
but there are numerous references throughout the rout rules which refers to routing units "moving"
oversight or intentional sublety? seems like the former
ole?
Melvin: Only contradiction to the rules you quoted is that the TI counter stays on the leader until the end of the CC phase since the text is in red. If the intent was to allow rout it would (IMO) be printed in orange, so as to be removed at the end of the AFPh. This would also allow advance, which is also a form of movement.
PIN says no move, no advance, removed at the end of CCPh. TI says the same thing, adding no fire, also removed at the same time. A Pinned leader is clearly not allowed to rout with another unit, I believe it's an oversight not to include TI in that same rule section. Pin rules also state that the unit may not rout unless subsequently broken. TI doesn't address rout and isn't mentioned in the voluntary rout rule for leaders.
A reasonable argument against it would be that move and advance are on either side of rout during the turn, it would be odd to allow a TI leader freedom to rout with a broken unit when it could not otherwise move. TI represents some task that takes the remainder of the player turn to complete, be it labor of some sort or sniper check.
Some points on the specific rules you mention.
A.3 refers to moves and advances being separately denied. It does not touch on routs, which normally only involve broken units, or voluntary rout by a leader.
No problems with A4.8 or A10.711, except that A10.711 may need to add TI to the list to clarify the status of a TI leader. (Unless I'm proven wrong.)
Concealment has little to do with deciding if a TI leader may voluntarily rout with a broken unit. A12.141 seems to be the catch all concealment loss rule.
From a Scott Romanowski errata:
A4.8 & A10.711 Can a TI Leader Voluntary Rout? (Reference: A.3; A4.8; A10.711
A. Yes. [Letter267]
From a Scott Romanowski errata:
A4.8 & A10.711 Can a TI Leader Voluntary Rout? (Reference: A.3; A4.8; A10.711
A. Yes. [Letter267]
WOW, thats all I have to say.
However, that is strictly to the rules.
Melvin Falk
01 Mar 08, 14:08
-------------------
This isn't the first time I've been wrong about some rule, but it is odd to me that this is the case.
A unit declares some task that makes it TI, with leader direction they get a DRM on their task. Half way through the task (which takes all turn per the TI rule) the leader bails to follow one of the squads (or the only squad) that got broken at some point (even voluntary break). Without the broken unit to rout with, the leader is stuck till the end of the turn and can't leave his Location.
It may be a nuance, purposely placed by the designers, but it sounds more like a loophole to me.
It also sounds like it's time to re-read that Q&A file of Scott R's...
BTW can a unit uses voluntary rout and then move again in advance Ph?
if not TI, of course...
Miguel
Melvin Falk
02 Mar 08, 12:11
-----------------------
Neuralman
02 Mar 08, 12:29
From a Scott Romanowski errata:
A4.8 & A10.711 Can a TI Leader Voluntary Rout? (Reference: A.3; A4.8; A10.711
A. Yes. [Letter267]
doncha have to first Break before Voluntary Rout? You do if you're Pinned...
WOW, thats all I have to say.
However, that is strictly to the rules.
:D Alan, After the big find presented just a few days ago....think your slipping my friend!:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Ain't ASL great?!:thumup:
I would have guessed tha same as you based upon the TI counter!:hurt:
:D Alan, After the big find presented just a few days ago....think your slipping my friend!:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Ain't ASL great?!:thumup:
I would have guessed tha same as you based upon the TI counter!:hurt:
I slipped many years ago and have given up trying to make sense of the ASL rules.
hershmeister
02 Mar 08, 23:14
was the Q+A dating from ver 1 or ver 2 of the ASLRB?
Treadhead
03 Mar 08, 00:46
The cited Q&A (particularly one referenced as "Letter267") is hardly relevant IMO.
Here are my clues.:
A4.8: "TI status is incurred by Infantry engaged in various tasks requiring prolonged effort throughout the Player Turn."
Routing, and in particular Voluntary Rout, is an "action" per the ASOP.
As far as I am concerned, a unit affected by TI is restricted from performing any other action during the entire Player Turn, except for those things specifically allowed, e.g. CC.
Is Routing a form of 'moving'?
The question may perhaps be answered with another question: Does a Routing unit expend MF during the RtPh?
A10.53: "Once a unit begins its rout, it is expending MF..."
I propose that the expenditure of "MF" means the unit is "moving", and as used in A4.8 refers not only to the MPh.
In A10.51, the terms "routing" and "moving" seem to be used almost interchangeably. There is no doubt in my understanding, that 'routing' is 'moving' as far as it goes.
These three factors compel me to believe that a TI leader may not use Voluntary Rout.
Bruce
Sparafucil3
03 Mar 08, 07:45
These three factors compel me to believe that a TI leader may not use Voluntary Rout.
Bruce
Which is all well and good except the rules czar and defacto arbiter of all things ASL disagrees with you. :laugh: It is this factor that compells us all to allow it. I don't think I have mentioned it lately, but I hate it when the rules are not completely clear and require clarification. Is it too much to ask that the answer be obvious in the body of the rules itself? -- jim
Treadhead
03 Mar 08, 07:53
Which is all well and good except the rules czar and defacto arbiter of all things ASL disagrees with you.
Really? Did I miss something? Surely, you're not referring to that Q&A quoted earlier, the 'Letter267' thingy...
Melvin Falk
03 Mar 08, 08:10
------------------
Sparafucil3
03 Mar 08, 08:52
Really? Did I miss something? Surely, you're not referring to that Q&A quoted earlier, the 'Letter267' thingy...
Has Perry ever turned one of those over? Have the pertinent rules sections changed between Version 1 and Version 2 of the rules? The last I heard, Perry explicitly asked if we intended to re-submit every Q&A because he did not wanted to be bothered with questions that had been answered once before. My memory on this is suspect, but I think it was in answer to a question asked by Jim Taylor. :hmmm: So yeah, I guess I am referring to the Letter267 thingy. -- jim
Really? Did I miss something? Surely, you're not referring to that Q&A quoted earlier, the 'Letter267' thingy...
Yeah, I think he is. He's not the only one.
Of course, in the privacy of your own game room, you can play however you see fit. I won't even go down Tate's road of shouting that you are not really playing ASL....
But....when people come together from disparate locations at gatherings or on VASL, there needs to be an accepted body of prudence regarding interpretations of the rules when they are not clear.
<shrug>...do what you want.
Bret Hildebran
03 Mar 08, 09:51
Has Perry ever turned one of those over?
Sure - Perry overturned his own Q&A with the whole bridge debacle. He's also overturned various Fort Q&A's where Fortenberry answered based on how he wanted the game to be played - best example is the "when tanks can make a motion attempt dr".
In this case it's a seemingly odd enough answer it deserves a resubmittal to ask "is this really true?" It's also not a published Q&A, so technically it's not official - a resubmittal might encourage it to be printed. I believe Perry's thinking is that this reflects his leaning (or in this case likely someone else's), but until it's printed it's not official. So while this Q&A is the best leanings we have, it's certainly not canon.
Sure - Perry overturned his own Q&A with the whole bridge debacle. He's also overturned various Fort Q&A's where Fortenberry answered based on how he wanted the game to be played - best example is the "when tanks can make a motion attempt dr".
In this case it's a seemingly odd enough answer it deserves a resubmittal to ask "is this really true?" It's also not a published Q&A, so technically it's not official - a resubmittal might encourage it to be printed.
I think this raises a great point.
Perry has overturned his own and previous Q&A.
He has also on at least one occasion rhetorically asked (seemingly peeved?) if he was going to have to re-make/validate every Q&A for V2.
I wonder if it would be too much to ask that Scott R's Q&A be edited and revised by Perry so as to apply to V2? I would, after all, be an exercise in editing and not a creation from scratch?
Barring a specific ruling to the contrary, I assume that rulings in Scott's compiled Q&A still hold for V2. Of course, that means now one has to search yet another body of Q&A to come to a final answer....
Neuralman
03 Mar 08, 10:07
Sure - Perry overturned his own Q&A with the whole bridge debacle. He's also overturned various Fort Q&A's where Fortenberry answered based on how he wanted the game to be played
I'm thinking the Q&As would make more sense if they were answered more like this than what we have now. The existing "rules lawyering" decreases the goodness of The Game. (ie, fix the rules -- instead of coming up with a nonsensical 'rules based' interpretation for 'the most realistic WWII...' game).
--N
Bruce, I agree with you on the no TI leaders voluntary routing. The only problem with your interpretation (and mine) is that the rule for voluntary rout says non-berserk non-pinned, but does not mention TI in any way. So any leader that's not berserk or pinned may rout with a broken unit.
They might have used Good Order instead of this list, probably would make the rule easier to apply, but the designers choose this particular combination.
Second guessing the designers seems to be a habit of mine. I have to wonder how the Chapter A rules came together. Were bits added one at a time, or a group at a time? For instance, most tasks that get TI are labor intensive such as digging foxholes or lighting fires. If those were added after the rule for voluntary rout, perhaps the old rules weren't integrated completely with the new.
I'm still of the opinion that the TI is an oversight/omission, and should be included in the rule for voluntary rout. (Preventing voluntary rout of course.)
Sparafucil3
03 Mar 08, 16:17
Sure - Perry overturned his own Q&A with the whole bridge debacle. He's also overturned various Fort Q&A's where Fortenberry answered based on how he wanted the game to be played - best example is the "when tanks can make a motion attempt dr".
In this case it's a seemingly odd enough answer it deserves a resubmittal to ask "is this really true?" It's also not a published Q&A, so technically it's not official - a resubmittal might encourage it to be printed. I believe Perry's thinking is that this reflects his leaning (or in this case likely someone else's), but until it's printed it's not official. So while this Q&A is the best leanings we have, it's certainly not canon.
For what it is worth, nothing pisses me off more than not being able to find the answer in the rules. To me, when this happens something should be done to fix it. However, unless pertinent section in the body of the rules has changed, I see no reason to not go with the previous interpretation. I know that sucks, I know the arguments about V2 throwing out the V1 Q&A, but I also know that V1 Q&A is the best inference we have when faced with a rules dilema that seems to not be answered in the body of the text. Me, I just wish the rules were clear to begin with. -- jim
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.