Another Rout question

[General Mayhem]

It is the rout phase. Can the Greek unit in Y5 low crawl to Y4.

One argument is that the Greeks cannot see AA6 so they could rout away from the Adjacent unit to Z5, albeit they then would be unable to rout further without risking interdiction so would surrender. Due to the unit in Y6, Z5 can be ignored so they can rout toward X3 and use low crawl to avoid interdiction.

The other argument is that ultimately the Z5 path would end up risking interdiction so therefore they surrender as they are unable to rout without risking interdiction or using low crawl.

[rdw5150]

Hello!

I would say no. It has to resort to LC to go to Y4. Just because it cannot see AA6 (I do not think) matters. AA6 can still interdict Y4 and thus the unit in Y4 has to resort to LC or risk interdiction.

But I get this stuff wrong all the time.

I think an article on surrender, interdiction, LC, elimination for FTR would make a great Journal article.

Peace

roger

[klasmalmstrom]

It is the rout phase. Can the Greek unit in Y5 low crawl to Y4.

One argument is that the Greeks cannot see AA6 so they could rout away from the Adjacent unit to Z5, albeit they then would be unable to rout further without risking interdiction so would surrender. Due to the unit in Y6, Z5 can be ignored so they can rout toward X3 and use low crawl to avoid interdiction.

The other argument is that ultimately the Z5 path would end up risking interdiction so therefore they surrender as they are unable to rout without risking interdiction or using low crawl.

I would play it as if you can declare Z5 as the initial rout target - i.e., you can rout away from X5 without resorting to LC/Interdiction. And then since Z5 is an option and you can ignore it and choose to LC to Y4 instead (presumably with X3 as the target).

I believe that the "...or only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl..." from A20.21 only applies from where the unit is to its target - in this case Z5.

Then if you choose Z5 you have to look at Z5 and the next possible target from there and see if the clause from A20.21 applies.

Here is a thread on a similiar (not identical) situation: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?98538

[Vinnie]

I think he may have to four towards Z5 since there does not seem to be any way he can ignore it assuming heccannot see Z7 or AA6. Thereafter he's going to be eliminated for ftr.

[rdw5150]

Greetings!

Pretty tricky (sneaky)there.

But if you declare Z5 don't you have to at least make an attempt to go to your target? I mean what is the point in declaring a target? If you then go to Z5 the unit then surrenders, correct?

I guess I am missing something. Are you saying you can declare a target (in this case Z5) but not go there and then LC to Y4 as you do not *have* to resort to LC as you could have gone to Z5 even though you would have then surrendered?

Some of the people I play would have trouble being convinced that is legal.

Peace

Roger

[klasmalmstrom]

I think he may have to four towards Z5 since there does not seem to be any way he can ignore it assuming heccannot see Z7 or AA6. Thereafter he's going to be eliminated for ftr.

Z5 can be ignored since it would not be further away from the unit in X6 than the broken unit is now in Y5 - i.e., both Y5 (starting hex) and Z5 are two hexes away from the KEU in X6.

[Vinnie]

Ignore that he can ignore it as it's no further away from x6 so he has the chance to rout away.

[klasmalmstrom]

But if you declare Z5 don't you have to at least make an attempt to go to your target? I mean what is the point in declaring a target? If you then go to Z5 the unit then surrenders, correct?

I guess I am missing something. Are you saying you can declare a target (in this case Z5) but not go there and then LC to Y4 as you do not *have* to resort to LC as you could have gone to Z5 even though you would have then surrendered?

What I am saying is that there is a way for the unit in Y4 to rout away (to its initial rout target) from X5 without LC/Interdiction - and that is to Z5. So it doesn't have to Surrender to the unit in X5. But even when such a rout path exists (to Z5), the broken unit doesn't actually have to use it - it can choose another legal path if such exists, even if that path requires Interdiction.

This is what I thought in the other thread linked to above and I know (partly due to a few Q&A referenced in that thread) there are other opinions. If I remember correctly someone did send in a Q to MMP regarding the situation in the other thread.

[rdw5150]

Interesting......

So, as long as I can choose a rout (albeit a bad one) I can LC to Y4 even though it would normally risk interdiction or resorting to LC and not have to surrender.


Thanks!

Still, I would have trouble convincing people of that one I think.

Peace

Roger

[klasmalmstrom]

...Still, I would have trouble convincing people of that one I think...

Then you can direct them to A20.21:
"...unable to rout away from it or only able to rout while being subject to Interdiction or resorting to Low Crawl (regardless of how it actually routs or if the possible unconcealed Interdictor is Known to it), will surrender to that enemy unit as its prisoner instead..."

and this official Q&A:
A20.21 If a broken unit is ADJACENT to a Known, Good Order, armed infantry unit and has a legal rout path which would not be subject to interdiction, may it instead ignore that rout path and take interdiction (or use Low Crawl) if otherwise allowed by the rout rules?
A. Yes. [An97]

I'm guessing the wording in A20.21 might have been changed due to this Q&A.