Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   The Fantasy Trip (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100)
-   -   Question About Facing After Retreat (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=163304)

Tom H. 04-28-2019 04:35 PM

Question About Facing After Retreat
 
When you are forced to retreat a hex, can your facing change?

If so, do you or your opponent choose the new facing?

The answer to these questions appears to have definite tactical repercussions.

In any event, it seems like the facing after a retreat can sometimes result in an unnatural alignment.

I couldn't glean anything from the rules to address this situation. I searched the forum a bit, but didn't readily find anything.

Thank you for any insights.

hcobb 04-28-2019 04:59 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Both Melee and Wizard rulebooks (but not ITL) include this text: "stand still (thus possibly becoming disengaged)." It stands to reason that the attacker can't force the victim to turn around while following them (and hence becoming disengaged that way). The retreated figure can therefore choose their own facing in the new hex, unless multi-hex.

Now whatboutism if a half dozen knights inflicted one hit (past armor) each on a 14-hex dragon with their swords. Does this group get to retreat the dragon a half dozen hexes that turn, either turning it around or forcing it off the map?

Anaraxes 04-28-2019 05:45 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Another possibility is that the retreating figure must face the hex from which it retreated.

This is probably taking the word "retreat" too literally, if the defender can be forced into any adjacent hex (ITL 118) and not just the ones behind them. Also, TFT turns are relatively long (compared to GURPS turns).

The "Force Retreats" phase (ITL 102) says that the retreat must be into a hex that's further from the attacker. The Glossary (ITL 11) says that retreats are by definition "away from" the attacker, for a similar meaning. Melee's "Forcing Retreats" paragraph (M20) includes the "farther away" language. So, I think this is probably the intended rule, and ITL 118 just lost that phrase in editing. In that case, "face the hex from which you retreated" is more reasonable.

Tom H. 04-28-2019 09:42 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Yes, thank you both for your feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaraxes (Post 2259098)
Another possibility is that the retreating figure must face the hex from which it retreated.

. . .

The "Force Retreats" phase (ITL 102) says that the retreat must be into a hex that's further from the attacker. The Glossary (ITL 11) says that retreats are by definition "away from" the attacker, for a similar meaning. Melee's "Forcing Retreats" paragraph (M20) includes the "farther away" language. So, I think this is probably the intended rule, and ITL 118 just lost that phrase in editing. In that case, "face the hex from which you retreated" is more reasonable.

I too tried to infer if the retreat needed to be in one of the three hexes "away" from the initial position of the attacker. I decided this was the appropriate interpretation. (Otherwise, the combatants would be exchanging sides and typically disengaging.)

I like your proposal for the loser still facing the hex from which he came.

Although I had previously dismissed it as being too complex, I had considered this variation:

After retreat, the loser must choose a facing that would keep the attacker engaged should the attacker pursue into the vacated hex.

FireHorse 04-28-2019 09:46 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hcobb (Post 2259092)
Both Melee and Wizard rulebooks (but not ITL) include this text: "stand still (thus possibly becoming disengaged)." It stands to reason that the attacker can't force the victim to turn around while following them (and hence becoming disengaged that way).

The Attacker doesn't need to force the Defender to turn around to become disengaged. If the Attacker was engaged, then he was in one of the Defender's front hexes; forcing the Defender to retreat means he will become disengaged if he chooses to stand still, rather than advancing into the vacated hex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaraxes (Post 2259098)
Another possibility is that the retreating figure must face the hex from which it retreated.

I don't think that was the intent, because…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaraxes (Post 2259098)
This is probably taking the word "retreat" too literally, if the defender can be forced into any adjacent hex (ITL 118) and not just the ones behind them.

I agree: it specifies that the forced "retreat" must move the Defender away from the Attacker — but what if they weren't facing the Attacker?

Consider this Example, where A attacks B from the B's side, and forces a retreat.

This is why the Question posed by Tom H. matters, because IF…
  1. A gets to choose B's facing, then B always gets it in the back
  2. B gets to choose the facing, then B never gets it in the back
  3. B retains its previous facing, then A gets a possible tactical advantage, depending on where he chooses to push B and whether to pursue

Option 3 is the most interesting, and (I think) is what the Rule intended.

hcobb 04-28-2019 09:59 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FireHorse (Post 2259123)
The Attacker doesn't need to force the Defender to turn around to become disengaged. If the Attacker was engaged, then he was in one of the Defender's front hexes; forcing the Defender to retreat means he will become disengaged if he chooses to stand still, rather than advancing into the vacated hex.

Note if only standing still offers a disengagement option then following the victim doesn't offer disengagement only because the victim can turn to force that engagement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireHorse (Post 2259123)
This is why the Question posed by Tom H. matters, because IF A gets to choose B's facing, then A's next attack is going to hurt even more than the last one did.

No, because no further attack can occur before the victim moves (and possibly changes facing) again.

It matters because the now disengaged attacker can move freely and/or enter HTH at lower risk.

larsdangly 04-28-2019 10:14 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
I've always had the figure translate to the new hex without changing facing.

Tom H. 04-28-2019 10:17 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FireHorse (Post 2259123)
I don't think that was the intent, because…

Great point. The defender may not have been facing the attacker anyway. So it may be contrived to force the defender to face him as we suggested. (The defender may be more preoccupied with a bigger threat anyway.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hcobb (Post 2259125)
It matters because the now disengaged attacker can move freely and/or enter HTH at lower risk.

Yes, and more generally, the resulting facing of the defender may be significant.

Assume the following:
  1. Side A controls the attacking figure. Figure B of side B was forced to retreat.
  2. There are several side A figures in close proximity to figure B.
  3. Side A must move first on the following turn.

The resulting facing of figure B (from the retreat) could engage and constrain the movement of any one of several side A figures.

FireHorse 04-28-2019 10:27 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Sorry hcobb, apparently you posted while I was editing, so part of your quoted passage changed.

You are of course right that the Defender will have the opportunity to turn again before the next round of blows are exchanged — but then again, he may have other problems to worry about wherever he's standing now, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hcobb (Post 2259125)
Note if only standing still offers a disengagement option then following the victim doesn't offer disengagement only because the victim can turn to force that engagement.

Sorry, I don't follow. Why does only standing still offer the possibility of disengagement? What if you drove him backwards one hex and he backed up into your pal, the Ogre? Even if you follow him, your enemy is quite likely to leave you disengaged when he turns to face the greater threat.

Tom H. 04-28-2019 10:36 PM

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by larsdangly (Post 2259126)
I've always had the figure translate to the new hex without changing facing.

That is a direct way to resolve the issue.

However, it can be too easy for a pursuing attacker to ensure that the defender no longer engaged him (for a defender that was not directly facing the attacker's hex.) It may be weird that the defender would just "turn his back" as the result of being forced to retreat.

~~~

I've wondered to what extent you can apply this general facing rule:
Quote:

A player may change the facing of a figure whenever it moves, and may always change its facing at the end of its movement turn, even if it stayed in the same hex.
(Melee, p. 9)

Could this move also apply to retreats?

Skarg has already enlightened me to the sometimes ambiguous and overloaded meaning of move in the rules.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.