Diengaging by Forcing Retreat - Page 2

RobW · 06-15-2019, 06:23 AM

One way to phrase this is, you start the turn engaged by two enemies, and then as a result of forcing retreat, you'll be engaged with just one. The question is whether you get to choose or not.

RAW being engaged with another figure does not prohibit advancing.

But I agree this feels like taking a free action and probably wouldn't allow it myself.

The reason I say "probably" is that we enjoy fun tactical options, and like to encourage things other than hack-n-slash. So things that might be persuasive at our table: (1) is the engaging figure attending elsewhere (eg attacking yet a different figure); (2) for the attacker, the one forcing retreat, are they being engaged from their rear or front hex? That is, not inclined to allow a free disengage from someone in your rear hex. None of which are RAW.

Nils_Lindeberg · 06-16-2019, 05:34 AM

I strongly would advise allowing this. It is RAW and RAI as far as I am concerned. TFT is a tactical game and two vs. one is hard enough. And anything that limits your options after engagement, makes it boring. So when you are surrounded, by weaker opponents, your only chance to get your back to a wall or your ass out the door is to fight your way through. That is basically not possible if you can't force a retreat and follow up. You would have to kill everyone before you could take one step. No matter the quality of the opposition. That is IMO boring.

I would even go so far as to allow people to ignore engagement, if they are willing to prove that the enemy isn't a threat, by letting them have an extra auto-hit attack (only roll for a possible crit or fumble). But that is not RAW or RAI. We need more options and mobility, not less, in fights after initial engagements. :-)

For example, set up a shield wall with 10 vs 10 people, and see if anyone can break through without killing their opponent. Pushing, shoving, shield bashing and forcing retreats for minor wounds are hard enough to do. But even if you succeed, you won't be able to exploit that hole, since you will always be engaged one way or another.
Or militia doing crowd control with non lethal means agains a mob? Very hard to simulate without it being very static or turning into a blood bath.

06-15-2019, 06:23 AM	#11
RobW Join Date: Mar 2018	Re: Diengaging by Forcing Retreat One way to phrase this is, you start the turn engaged by two enemies, and then as a result of forcing retreat, you'll be engaged with just one. The question is whether you get to choose or not. RAW being engaged with another figure does not prohibit advancing. But I agree this feels like taking a free action and probably wouldn't allow it myself. The reason I say "probably" is that we enjoy fun tactical options, and like to encourage things other than hack-n-slash. So things that might be persuasive at our table: (1) is the engaging figure attending elsewhere (eg attacking yet a different figure); (2) for the attacker, the one forcing retreat, are they being engaged from their rear or front hex? That is, not inclined to allow a free disengage from someone in your rear hex. None of which are RAW.

06-16-2019, 05:34 AM	#12
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Re: Diengaging by Forcing Retreat I strongly would advise allowing this. It is RAW and RAI as far as I am concerned. TFT is a tactical game and two vs. one is hard enough. And anything that limits your options after engagement, makes it boring. So when you are surrounded, by weaker opponents, your only chance to get your back to a wall or your ass out the door is to fight your way through. That is basically not possible if you can't force a retreat and follow up. You would have to kill everyone before you could take one step. No matter the quality of the opposition. That is IMO boring. I would even go so far as to allow people to ignore engagement, if they are willing to prove that the enemy isn't a threat, by letting them have an extra auto-hit attack (only roll for a possible crit or fumble). But that is not RAW or RAI. We need more options and mobility, not less, in fights after initial engagements. :-) For example, set up a shield wall with 10 vs 10 people, and see if anyone can break through without killing their opponent. Pushing, shoving, shield bashing and forcing retreats for minor wounds are hard enough to do. But even if you succeed, you won't be able to exploit that hole, since you will always be engaged one way or another. Or militia doing crowd control with non lethal means agains a mob? Very hard to simulate without it being very static or turning into a blood bath.