Yes, thank you both for your feedback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
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.