Direction of Rout Moves

[philfigo]

p104 8.B 4.2
it is written "4.2. At the start of the rout, the routing UG wheels and/or turns as necessary so it ends as far as possible from:"
But that's a lot of possibilities to test to be "as far as possible"

The text on the directions for run away or skirmish response p66 5.L 3.2 works well and seems correct also for rout moves
It may already be used this way, but a clarification would be welcome

My question is:
Should we use all three directions as for run away or skirmish response or should we check all possibilities?

thank you for your answer

[badhabum]

To me basically it's mostly just run away from the enemy the shortest way out . Do not measure by increments of BW . If there are many possibilities choose one the most logical and so be it .

Keep it simple

[nikgaukroger]

p104 8.B 4.2
it is written "4.2. At the start of the rout, the routing UG wheels and/or turns as necessary so it ends as far as possible from:"
But that's a lot of possibilities to test to be "as far as possible"

The text on the directions for run away or skirmish response p66 5.L 3.2 works well and seems correct also for rout moves
It may already be used this way, but a clarification would be welcome

My question is:
Should we use all three directions as for run away or skirmish response or should we check all possibilities?

thank you for your answer

You may be overthinking things by involving the skirmish/run-way rules which are for a different situation.

You need to follow the direction given in the rules to get as far away as possible from:

"4.2.1. If routing when in combat, enemy in front-edge contact with it. If there are
multiple UGs in contact with the routers the owning player chooses which
enemy to rout away from.

4.2.2. If routing from shooting (but not in combat), the shooters. If there are multiple
UGs shooting at the routers the owning player chooses which to rout away from.

4.2.3. If routing due to a KaB test (but not in combat), the enemy rear table edge."

In my experience it is usually fairly obvious which way you go and where there may be an option, if it isn't obvious it is too close to make any material difference.

[philfigo]

well, it seems to be most often the direct opposite of the one who routed you

I will keep this simple solution

this question happens more often when your opponent make a flank attacks
one who routs, would like to go on his rear, so as not to cross the contiguous unit and make it a KaB

thanks for your answer

[lionheartrjc]

well, it seems to be most often the direct opposite of the one who routed you

I will keep this simple solution

this question happens more often when your opponent make a flank attacks
one who routs, would like to go on his rear, so as not to cross the contiguous unit and make it a KaB

thanks for your answer

If you are hit in the flank (fighting in one direction only) then you rout away from the UG that hit you in the flank.  YOU DO NOT have an option to rout to your rear.  If there is a friendly UG next to it, it may be possible to shift 1/2 BW to avoid the burst through, otherwise a burst through will occur.

If hit in two or more directions then different rules apply.

[philfigo]

If you are hit in the flank (fighting in one direction only) then you rout away from the UG that hit you in the flank.  YOU DO NOT have an option to rout to your rear.  If there is a friendly UG next to it, it may be possible to shift 1/2 BW to avoid the burst through, otherwise a burst through will occur.

If hit in two or more directions then different rules apply.

most often, the rout move should be on the opposite side to the one contacted

[badhabum]

YEP