Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
You're already short-changing A by down-grading their preemptive step to a retreat. No reason to make it even worse. .
|
I agree. My first inclination was to not allow the "retreat" counterattack from player B as I like the idea of a smart player being able to keep a closing attacker at bay. What nagged at me was the fact that player A could get 2 back-to-back attacks before B could effectively respond (unless the step back is treated as a retreat). Didn't seem realistic....
Your and OldSam's comments sparked another idea....In an effort to not short-change player A (or B), what about allowing player B to convert his Step and Attack to a Move and Attack? Strictly speaking, I don't like to allow players to change maneuvers mid-turn. But, in this case where B was stepping forward to attack (and had his attack thwarted by A stepping back), it seems reasonable that B would simply keep moving forward and close the gap (particularly if A can attack and still take 2 steps back with a Committed Attack in same time frame). Of course, B's attack would now be at a penalty for Move and Attack, but this also allows A to maintain some of the advantage of a pre-emptive backstep....