[Tactics] When do you voluntarily rout?

So far, I've only played a quick pick-up game with my Dwarfs, who promptly were wiped out down to one Thunderer. In a campaign, I can see the advantage to volunterring to rout ahead of time so as to protect yourself from unnecessary casualties, but when do you decide enough is enough?
Being Warhammer, I have the inclination to holding out even against the ugliest odds, but now that there are consequences to being tabled, it doesn't seem to be the wisest decision.

The official ruling is that you begin taking rout tests once you have suffered 25% casualties, rolling against your leader's leadership at the beginning of every turn. You may also voluntarily rout at this point, but it must be at the beginning of the turn.

In our campaigns we play with optional rules further restricting voluntary fleeing, which pretty much boil down to 25% + 1 casualties (i.e. a warband of 12 models would have to suffer 4 casualties), although if you have a very small warband (5 or fewer) or a very large warband (16+, I believe) then it's either at 25% or at 25% + 2, respecitively.

Personally I prefer to play with those rules because it hampers the "send in the pawns while us heroes sit back and make a lot of money" tactic a bit, and also sometimes the tide of battle can change within a turn or two so it occasionally turns what would have been a voluntary rout into a win (or at least you get some more xp out of the thing).

Thanks, Myntokk. I'll suggest it to our campaign manager to see if he'll incorporate the house rules.I guess my original question would be, "When is it tactically advantageous to voluntarily rout during a campaign?" It seems that my original topic title sounds rather vague.

Ah gotcha. Well I would say you have to make that judgment call on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately I think it boils down to this: at what point is your continued presence in the game negatively affecting your overall income? That includes factoring in things like how many warriors are you likely to have to replace, as well as how many heroes you've lost, thus missing out on income for that battle.

If you've already lost a couple of heroes I would generally say it's time to throw in the towel, but if it's just a few henchmen (especially easily replaced henchmen) then stick it out to get some exp. for your heroes, and since your primary fighters are still in the fray you probably have a fair chance at winning.

If you're probably going to win by sticking it out, even if you've taken heavy casualties, then stick it out - you may need that extra income to replace henchies, etc.

Conversely, if you started the game as the underdog, I personally would get out as fast as I could and collect on that underdog bonus while minimizing damage to the warband.

I live to fight another day, once the required amount go down i flee, no point risking your other guys to deaths.

With Dwarfs there is no such thing as an easily replaced henchmen. Unless I am winning I voluntary route as soon as I can.

Duce wrote:

I live to fight another day, once the required amount go down i flee, no point risking your other guys to deaths.

This is why we ended up enacting the "extra casualties to voluntarily rout" house-rule. Not that fleeing as soon as you get the chance isn't strategically sound, but everyone did it. Our games were getting short and uninteresting, not to mention that shooty warbands were ruling the table moreso than they normally do because they'd pop a couple of your guys off and you'd run, then they'd get all the rewards.

That aside though, sometimes the potential rewards outweigh the loss of a few more models, especially if they're expendable ones, such as in scenarios like monster hunt or wizard's mansion where you can end up with some really cool loot.

Haha and yes, not all warbands have the option of taking the "what's a few more henchmen?" attitude, dwarfs being one of them.

JAFisher and Myntokk, can you elaborate some on your opinion? I am aware that Dwarfs are regularly outnumbered due to their point costs, so the odds are ususally going to be stacked against me. Should that mean that I should voluntarily rout and forfeit as soon as possible until I reach a significant bonus from an underdog handicap?
Doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun.

The thing with dwarfs is that they're very expensive, so losing anyone, even a henchman, can be a big blow to the warband. That is why, unless you're winning (or you think you still have a good shot at winning without taking too many more casualties), it's usually a good idea to flee once you have the chance and minimize damage done to your warband.

Luckily dwarfs, unlike other elite warbands, have two things going for them that help them out in this respect: they're very tough to take down (ooa half as easily as anyone else) and they're expert money-makers.

Sounds like a good deal to me.
I suppose I should post my starting list in the stickied thread?

With dwarfs it is pretty easy to get into a downward spiral. Unless you work really hard to avoid it you are gonna have a pretty small starting band. If a game goes bad for you (especially if you don't voluntary route and take lots of casualties) You can lose quite a few guys. If you don't roll very well in exploration you can end up with not enough money to replace you losses, let alone improve your band. I have played campaigns where this happened to me several times, my warband just dwindled away. After the third game I just took a restart, I probably should have done it after the second game. Troll puke and Zzap! chew through dwarfs like a pit bull through wet TP. With Dwarfs abysmal move speed winning most objective based scenarios is damn near impossible. So, I start my Dwarf band with as many models as possible and, like I said above, route as soon as I can unless I'm kicking the other guy around. I pray for good injury rolls, good exploration, and maybe a few LGT. Save my pennies and try to get lots of crossbows. A crossbow bolt moves way faster than a dwarf. It may be beardy (pun intended) but it's what a dwarf's got to do.

Sorry to temporarily hijack the thread. Fisher, from your experience do you think its wise to start off with a suit of gromeril armour for your dwarvers?

Oddly enough I'm more prone to volentarily route after taking no hero casualties then anythingn else. Should I ever be in a commanding position with heroes on the field and the situation could turn grim I don't mind granting my opponent that extra 1 xp and D6 exploration. Although if we're playing a wizards mansion or a monster hunt routing is likely to change.

No armor is worth the cost in this game unless you have house rules to increase the effectiveness of armor or reduce its cost. That being said, For Dwarfs Gromril is sort of a free shot to try it out. Starting Dwarf Treasure Hunters are allowed to buy suits of Gromril for 75GC. When you figure out that armor sucks you can sell it back for half the value listed in the price chart in the trading section of the rule book, which is 150GC. In short, you buy it for 75GC you sell it for 75GC. It costs you nothing to try it out, other than the fact that you are shooting yourself in the leg for one game (or how ever many games it takes you to figure out that armor sucks.)