Issues with Retreating Dodge

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Same reason the attacker can do two things per second - take active defense AND take a maneuver on his own turn. .

No he can't. He has to abandon defense to chase the bowman who can step twice as fast as he can.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by MrFix

That's how it works in GURPS already, there's no failure of simulation in GURPS in this case. If you checked out the thread there's a dozen ways for an archer to be chased down. Not using these ways is a tactical failure.

The archer should either be unable to attack, or it should be possible to step 2 and attack. It is not necessary to all-out attack or wild swing to chase down someone retreating.

The general problem here is that being attacked makes you faster. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by JMason

2) If the melee attack misses, the defender doesn't get to make a retreating dodge, breaking the loop.

another hilarious aspect

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

never throw knives when you can throw axes - to deliver swing cut damage with a hatchet makes for a nice eye opener.

not literally OC since cut attacks can't target eye, whereas thrust-impale thrown weapons can

I feel like it's probably possible to carry knives in bulk for throwing more easily than throwing axes in bulk, so a big draw is you can throw MORE knives if they miss or get dodged.

Originally Posted by MrFix

That assumption is wrong, see B377.
It does NOT say that retreat allows a step,
it says that as part of Retreat you must move at least 1 yard away,
but no more than 1/10 of your movement,
it's a special modifier of an active defense.

A special parameter which just so happens to be defined the exact same way as a step?

To the point where they even point this out?

exactly as for a step (see Step, p. 368).

Plus it then says "Your step back takes place immediately. It is assumed to occur as your foe is striking."

Now that I look at it, "you MUST move away" isn't exactly "you CAN move away".

B392: "You can retreat (see p. 377) in close combat, if you aren’t being grappled. Simply step out of close combat"

(obviously "aren't being grappled" is not a sole condition, standard things like "don't be sitting" and "not against ranged attacks" and "don't be stunned" and I would argue too "have unused movement" should apply)

Retreating backward for example, I think we universally agree can't be done with your back against a wall unless you're Shadowcat.

B377 doesn't really mention the "wall" situation, it only mentions an inability to do it while sitting, kneeling, stunned or sprinting. I think we should conclude then that B377's four examples of no-nos are not intended as an all-inclusive list of examples.

We're told elsewhere of another exception (if you're grappled)

Originally Posted by MrFix

It also does not state that you lose the ability to make a step on your turn.
This is important since majority of time Active Defenses happen on enemy's turn.
It also does not say you lose this turn's step if your maneuver got interrupted by enemy's Wait and you were forced to retreat.
In the same way, it doesn't say that you cannot retreat if you already stepped this turn.

OTOH does it necessarily NEED to?

Consider for example B371 "Actions After Being Grappled"

If you successfully break free, you may immediately move one yard in any direction.

Does that necessarily mean a "free yard" (ie "free step" for most chars) or that you may USE YOUR STEP (or movement point) to do this?

B371's box only lists 3 paragraphs. The first is attack maneuvers (A or AOA). The second is a Ready maneuver. The third is "Break Free" which wasn't defined previously as a maneuver so it's a bit unclear the context of how you'd do it (that's why TG is great, Cole defines it as done by Attack maneuvers, unless of course you do an Escaping Parry during an All-Out Defence in response to attempt to improve position...)

If we assume that 'Break Free' (3rd par) is just this ongoing thing you can do while doing one of the 3 explicitly allowed maneuvers (A/AOA/R) in lieu of the 4 explicitly disallowed ones (Aim/Feint/Concentrate/Wait) or the 6 unaddressed ones (Do Nothing, Evaluate, Change Posture, Move, Move and Attack, All-Out Defence) then I would think that "may immediately move on yard in any direction" would be done under the existing rules: you must use a Step or a Movement Point, and you can't walk through walls unless you're the Pryde of the X-Men.

So if the "you may" from B371's Break Free should draw upon existing movement allowances... why not Retreats too?

"You must move away" isn't exactly "you may move away" much less "you may move away even if you reached your movement limit", right?

B375 similarly for Sacrificial Dodge says "you must be close enough to interpose yourself between your friend and his attacker by taking a step". The implication here is that you TOOK A STEP due to the end note: "since you moved, you cannot retreat"

B374's summary is "In some situations, you may give ground" but the hard rules for Movement are found on B367:

A combatant can move a maximum number of yards equal to his full Move score if he took a Move or Move and Attack maneuver.
He can move up to half his Move if he chose an All-Out Attack or All Out Defense (Increased Dodge) maneuver.

No listed exceptions for retreat there, so going pure-RAW per B367 one could reason that you'd have to "leave some in the tank" to be able to retreat.

This wouldn't mean you couldn't advance while retaining the ability to retreat though. That would be possible for high-BM chars. B368's 2nd par allows Move 11+ (1 step = 2 yards) and beyond to break up their step. So instead of "move one yard, make an attack, and move another yard during an Attack maneuver", you would just move that 1st yard, then don't use the 2nd half of your step after the attack, reserving it for a possible retreat.

That seems like a balanced approach to me, because it's not just the backpedaling archer who suffers: the swordsman doing the step+attack over and over is basically depriving himself of a possible retreat bonus against the archer!

[Plane]

B363 seems key here:

Active Defense and Maneuvers "For the purpose of active defenses, your maneuver is considered to be in effect until you select another maneuver"
Movement and Maneuvers "Many maneuvers restrict movement to a “step.” This is movement up to 1/10 your Move" .. "You can perform your step before or
after the rest of the maneuver; instance, you could step and attack or attack and step."

It seems like a retreat could simply be a matter of "attack and step" with the step portion taking place after a foe begins a new maneuver but before you begin your next one.

If we take the approach that "a retreat is like a step in addition to the Movement specified by a maneuver" then this should mean you can (B364) do a retreat during a Do Nothing or a Change Posture despite "Movement: None". That wouldn't matter, since you're doing 0+1. But is that the intent?

MA123 says "once per turn, you can step away from any one attacker" but it never says "in addition to your usual movement allowance" so RAW it seems the "as per your normal movement allowances" has bones.

Especially as that seems to be why the FAQ says you can't retreat when grappled: because you can't MOVE when grappled!

M121 "Defence While Grappling" also seems to nail this:

the victim can’t step or change posture while defending, so he can’t retreat or use Acrobatic Dodge.

I'm actually not sure which part of 4E would explicitly imply the retreat to be a "bonus step" beyond normal movement parameters, rather than being done under the established parameters of maneuvers.

The sole printed example I'm aware of is in 3E, Compendium II p 68 "The backward step taken when retreating does not count against your character's Move score on the following turn". Did any text resembling this even get printed in 4E?

The "driven back by the force of an attack" explanation is clearly archaic justification by the time of 4E for three reasons:

1) many attacks are not physical and would not have "force". Knockback rules also already exist to cover this concept.
2) this would only make sense on parries/blocks where contact happens even on a success: a successful dodge avoids contact so there could be no force transfer
3) in the case of 'sideslip' or 'slip' you're not driven back in the direction of the attack at all, you move laterally or even TOWARD it

So maybe 4E could be assumed to have gone a "step further" than compendium's "Move and Step each reduced by 1 on the following turn" to an even more brutal policy of just not implying you could do it w/o 'unused step/move' at all?

3eB109's description of retreat actually includes one detail 4eB377 omitted: "You may not retreat into an occupied hex." and one benefit too: "You may change facing by one hex-side".

4eB386 does have an "in" for this of course, if you accept that a retreat uses the step, per The “Step” in
Tactical Combat box:

You may change facing freely before or after you move.

If a retreat gave you a BONUS step in addition to that, then that'd give you TWO instances of free facing changes: rather extreme.

B385 is also worth noting. Per "Wait Maneuver Strategy":

If you did not move at all on your turn, you may take a step (see The “Step” in Tactical Combat, p. 386) and then strike.

I would read that as "if I defended during my turn and used my step as a retreat, then I may not step and strike when my wait is triggered".

B387:

Most other maneuvers allow a step (see Step, p. 368). In this case, “cost” does not matter – you can move your full step (usually one hex), regardless of facing, posture, or terrain.

No mention there of "plus another yard if you got attacked". IE seems to imply the retreat would be that step, that retreats expend the step (for example in cases where you retreat before making your attack, like with a WAIT)

3e's Basic Combat (B98) doesn't list Retreating as an option, this is found only under Advanced Combat... B102 opening with "The number of hexes you can move depends on your Move score and the maneuver you choose each turn" then "Most maneuvers let you move only one hex." (neither mention of retreats extending these caps)

3eB103:

Where movement is part of a maneuver, you may always choose to move less than the distance called for. but never more.

3eB108 "may add to any active defense, by moving one hex in any direction away"

But "by moving" doesn't really seem to say "in addition to your normal amount" so CII68 seems to be addressing a dilemma which the RAW doesn't really necessitate confronting.

Paying standard movement costs for retreats (instead of them being like a 'bonus step no matter what') especially helps aggressors running forward at backpedalers if they're taking maneuvers that use Movement Points, because then the attacker has even more incentive to use a Slip instead of a Retreat or Sideslip: it only costs 1 MP to go forward instead of 2 MP to go sideways or backward.

Originally Posted by MrFix

Martial Arts introduces multiple new ways to retreat (which arent actually retreats, oughta call it mobile defenses or something),
including retreat to the side (-1 plus retreat bonus)
and retreat forward (-2 plus retreat bonus).

Nitpick: should actually describe this as "retreat toward" and "circle" because your facing actually has no impact on what bonus you get.

The traditional +3 retreat can actually be a "retreat forward" if your enemy is behind you (since you're moving away from him) while the "slip" can be a "retreat backward" if the attacking enemy is behind you.

The "sideslip" description is that whichever hex you move to keeps you equidistant from a foe. A "retreat to a side hex" can actually be a +1 slip (if toward an opponent attacking from that side hex) or a +3 retreat if attacking from one of the non-center front hexes)

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A foot archer in striking distance of a swordsman would not, in fact, prance backward while slowly and steadily peppering their attacker with arrows.

I know when I played Henry in Little Fighter 2 they didn't even have the option to back up, you would turn 180 and sprint away to get distance before doing another 180 and turning to shoot.

Of course, that had the advantage of not being surprised by rear attacks since you could see them coming as the player. Backing up is a better tactic IRL for that reason, since a swordsman could always whip out a knife and throw it in your back.

One tactic I could see being useful for archers is doing a sideslip+turn while dodging charging foes.

Unfortunately "overrun on a miss" only seems to happen with Slams, but it'd be cool if "residual momentum" was a larger variable in combat for sprinting foes.

Realistically speaking, sometimes thrusting attackers will be chargine fast to get max damage with the downside that a miss/dodge is going to really screw them up and put them in a vulnerable position, without the inertia of their intended target to slow them down.

[bearit]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The general problem here is that being attacked makes you faster. That makes absolutely no sense.

THIS!!! Well and succinctly worded.

Yes Martial Arts allows the Slip - forward dodge - which balances out the movement in the typical melee engagement. But an archer only shooting once every three turns, or a swordsman evaluating you, or a soldier readying his assault rifle just keep casually strolling backwards, while you are trying to run up, making wild swings or going all in just to catch up to them and hit them. A bit silly.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by bearit

Yes, there are a dozen ways for an archer (or any retreating combatant for that matter) to be chased down using GURPS mechanics. I'm very grateful to everyone for the myriad tactical insights in this regard.

However, in each example the melee pursuer is PENALIZED in order to gain enough movement to "keep up" (All-Out Attack, Committed Attack, Move and Attack), while the retreater suffers no penalties while outpacing the pursuer. This does not seem realistic. 'Catching' the archer is not the issue here. Being able to do so REALISTICALLY (at least on equal footing) is.

Ranged weapons being superior is ALSO not the issue. The same problem would occur with another swordsman, a Concentrating mage, or even someone just rummaging through their pack (Ready Maneuver).

Retreating inherently gives a double step and therefore advantage in tactical combat to the retreater at NO penalty, forcing the penalty on the pursuer to "keep up." This is where I and others see the failure of simulation in GURPS and look for a correction.

So I think there's actually two elements of this that deserve to be pulled apart.

One part is that retreating gives extra movement. That isn't actually a forward vs. backward issue - you can 'retreat' forwards (with Martial Arts rules). But it's weird, because it means that if your turn passes without you making at least one active defense against a melee attack, you've got one step less of movement available.

In the provided scenario this looks like an issue of advance vs. retreat, but that's not really true. Broadsword isn't losing out on that retreat mobility because they're playing aggressor, they're losing out on it because their opponent is not making melee attacks. If Bow instead was using a long spear, Broadsword would be able to slip forwards just as well as their opponent could retreat backwards.

There is and actual forwards vs. reverse bias, to some extent, but it's in something of a asymmetrical balance. On the one hand, using retreat to move towards the enemy rather than away eats penalties. On the other hand, non-step movement favors moving forwards, and AoA is only compatible with forward movement. Frankly, both of those things strike me as being as they should be...


EDIT: Anthony got the core point first, though I do note that it's only melee attacks that make the target go faster.

[MrFix]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No he can't. He has to abandon defense to chase the bowman who can step twice as fast as he can.

Incorrect, Move & Attack allows defenses. Committed Attack allows defenses. He can retreat forward if somebody attacks him, catching up to the guy.


In reply to Plane's breakdown. I think it's telling that it takes 2 large posts to arrive to something that, if it was intentional, would require only one sentence: "This counts as step part of your next maneuver". I won't break the post itself down layer by layer, since I trust it's all solid logic and conclusions, I just doubt that SJG just forgot to include the hidden cost of retreat and never amended it, ever.

Remember, Kromm replied to this thread, and he did not object to the archer stepping on a turn after retreating.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by bearit

THIS!!! Well and succinctly worded.

Yes Martial Arts allows the Slip - forward dodge - which balances out the movement in the typical melee engagement. But an archer only shooting once every three turns, or a swordsman evaluating you, or a soldier readying his assault rifle just keep casually strolling backwards, while you are trying to run up, making wild swings or going all in just to catch up to them and hit them. A bit silly.

Or you Committed Attack, which is neither AoA nor wild swings. It's a pretty important maneuver.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by MrFix

Incorrect, Move & Attack allows defenses. Committed Attack allows defenses. He can retreat forward if somebody attacks him, catching up to the guy.

Move and Attack allows defenses but means you'll usually miss. I have no idea what Committed Attack is. Nor is retreating forward an option in the Basic Rules that I was using when I was GMing GURPS Fantasy. I believe given the rules set I had, my choice was the right one.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Or you Committed Attack, which is neither AoA nor wild swings. It's a pretty important maneuver.

And is buried in Martial Arts. Which is a useful book but not one you should expect everyone to have.