04-28-2019, 04:35 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Question About Facing After Retreat
When you are forced to retreat a hex, can your facing change?
If so, do you or your opponent choose the new facing? The answer to these questions appears to have definite tactical repercussions. In any event, it seems like the facing after a retreat can sometimes result in an unnatural alignment. I couldn't glean anything from the rules to address this situation. I searched the forum a bit, but didn't readily find anything. Thank you for any insights. |
04-28-2019, 04:59 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Both Melee and Wizard rulebooks (but not ITL) include this text: "stand still (thus possibly becoming disengaged)." It stands to reason that the attacker can't force the victim to turn around while following them (and hence becoming disengaged that way). The retreated figure can therefore choose their own facing in the new hex, unless multi-hex.
Now whatboutism if a half dozen knights inflicted one hit (past armor) each on a 14-hex dragon with their swords. Does this group get to retreat the dragon a half dozen hexes that turn, either turning it around or forcing it off the map?
__________________
-HJC Last edited by hcobb; 04-28-2019 at 05:05 PM. |
04-28-2019, 05:45 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Another possibility is that the retreating figure must face the hex from which it retreated.
This is probably taking the word "retreat" too literally, if the defender can be forced into any adjacent hex (ITL 118) and not just the ones behind them. Also, TFT turns are relatively long (compared to GURPS turns). 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. Last edited by Anaraxes; 04-28-2019 at 05:52 PM. |
04-28-2019, 09:42 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Yes, thank you both for your feedback.
Quote:
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. Last edited by Tom H.; 04-28-2019 at 09:49 PM. |
|
04-28-2019, 09:46 PM | #5 | |||
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dayton, Ohio
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Consider this Example, where A attacks B from the B's side, and forces a retreat. This is why the Question posed by Tom H. matters, because IF…
Option 3 is the most interesting, and (I think) is what the Rule intended. Last edited by FireHorse; 04-28-2019 at 10:10 PM. Reason: Clarification |
|||
04-28-2019, 09:59 PM | #6 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Quote:
Quote:
It matters because the now disengaged attacker can move freely and/or enter HTH at lower risk.
__________________
-HJC |
||
04-28-2019, 10:14 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
I've always had the figure translate to the new hex without changing facing.
|
04-28-2019, 10:17 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Great point. The defender may not have been facing the attacker anyway. So it may be contrived to force the defender to face him as we suggested. (The defender may be more preoccupied with a bigger threat anyway.)
Quote:
Assume the following:
The resulting facing of figure B (from the retreat) could engage and constrain the movement of any one of several side A figures. Last edited by Tom H.; 04-28-2019 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Clarity |
|
04-28-2019, 10:27 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dayton, Ohio
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Sorry hcobb, apparently you posted while I was editing, so part of your quoted passage changed.
You are of course right that the Defender will have the opportunity to turn again before the next round of blows are exchanged — but then again, he may have other problems to worry about wherever he's standing now, too. Sorry, I don't follow. Why does only standing still offer the possibility of disengagement? What if you drove him backwards one hex and he backed up into your pal, the Ogre? Even if you follow him, your enemy is quite likely to leave you disengaged when he turns to face the greater threat. |
04-28-2019, 10:36 PM | #10 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
Quote:
However, it can be too easy for a pursuing attacker to ensure that the defender no longer engaged him (for a defender that was not directly facing the attacker's hex.) It may be weird that the defender would just "turn his back" as the result of being forced to retreat. ~~~ I've wondered to what extent you can apply this general facing rule: Quote:
Could this move also apply to retreats? Skarg has already enlightened me to the sometimes ambiguous and overloaded meaning of move in the rules. |
||
|
|