Maybe illegal retreats not so bad?

[RobW]

I thought there was a thread on this very topic already, but can’t find it...

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

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.

I thought this sounded like a great idea, and I gave this a bit of a go on a much smaller scale. While it does seem clear retreats were intended to move defender further from attacker, I’d favour any hex. The link below is an example from a critical point in one mock battle I ran. Allowing the green figure to retreat the brown one away from his allies breaks the brown line (if green win initiative next turn).

An illegal retreat example....

This isn’t allowed by the “retreat further away” requirement but as Nils says, loosening the retreat rule can open up more tactical possibilities in these situations.

[Shoug]

I would either allow anybody with initiative to do this. I feel like this is logical as it is a more advanced tactical maneuver, and it means that character's with Tactics or Strategist are more likely to achieve this maneuver. It also serves the purpose of making this niche rules transgression not 100% guaranteed.

Interesting problem.