Vamping Up Retreats

[Brazen Hussey]

I hope it's ok to talk about Hexagram #4 content here, as the digital edition is already out.

In this issue, Steve J wrote up his idea for revamping the forced retreat rule. It's much more consistent than RAW, and easy to understand. I'm glad he came up with this, and I think he's an all around good looking guy. However, of course I'm gonna kvetch a little or else why would I be here?

I've got two concerns with the new take on retreats. The first is that having more contests of skill might slow combat more than I want. But the more important one, to me, is how it makes combat harder for those poor folks with spears. After all, their best bet is to force a retreat so they can charge or get charged at again. The new rule weights the battle more to the sword fighters. A lot of my friends use spears, and this makes me feel sorry for them.

I guess I should also add that I like how the forced retreat rule tends to tactically shake up the combat and make it more dynamic and interesting. So if it happens a little less often, fine, but I don't want it to happen a LOT less often. Okay, so three concerns! No need to quote Monty Python, please.

I think the problem is that the one being asked to retreat has no reason to not contest it. If they lose, well that's what would have happened if they didn't contest it anyway, so why not contest it? I think they need to have some skin in the game. My suggestion is that if they contest the retreat and lose, then they also take one hit (ignoring armor). That would give them a reason to consider not contesting every time.

Okay, now you may tell me what a smrt fellow I am.

[Skarg]

My view is that the significance of the hex map is one of the best, most interesting, and most distinguishing features of TFT versus other non-SJ RPGs.

Forced Retreats are one of the few things that break up static lines of engagement, so I agree with you that I don't think I really want fewer forced retreats. TFT combat is static enough as is.

Also, the possibility of effects of Forced Retreats is one thing that can make map positions and terrain meaningful in play. The fewer effects, the less meaning the terrain has, and I would say, the less interesting and fun the map situation is.

For example, cliffside combat (like the Wizard map naturally evokes) seems like a cool and interesting thing, right? Well it's not so interesting when there's almost no chance anyone will ever fall in a pit even if they're fighting (or even if they fall down) right next to it. It's really fun to knock opponents into pits, and it's also fun to be afraid you're going to fall in.

There was already a change made to Forced Retreats in Legacy edition, which was to delete the original effect that if you have no place to retreat to, you have to make a 3/DX roll or fall down. That was another kind of effect of being cornered.

So if the logic issue Steve cited in the article as a reason for the change is really the issue, I'd think instead to restore that part of the rule, and make the choice (2) that if you try to not retreat, and you lose, then you fall down, not just that you have to retreat. I.e. it's the logical equivalent of choosing to fight like your back was to the wall in the original rules.

Then I'd add the house rule that we always used to add significance to pits, which was that if you fall down in a hex next to a pit or peril, roll 3/DX to avoid falling in (or more mercifully/logically, roll 1d6 to see which direction you might fall, and if it's a pit or peril, then roll 3/DX or fall in).

[RobW]

SJ says the rules on retreat are changing bar player input, so seems very appropriate to discuss here.

I like the current rule better than the proposed new one. But there is a general point about terrain that might be addressed to improve all kinds of "falling down" scenarios, I'll put that in a separate post as well.

1. The proposed contested retreat feels very GURPS-y, and not very TFT-y. In TFT I feel the "contest" has already been resolved. I hit you, you didn't hit me, now you're retreating. Done!

2. The current rule allows forcing retreats to hexes adjacent to the attacker. This I like, for two reasons. These take up too much space here so I'll address in a separate post.

3. I completely agree with the posters above, I don't really want a rule that reduces the frequency of retreats. The contest necessarily does that.

[Brazen Hussey]

Skarg, sounds like we both believe the potential retreater should have skin in the game if they contest the retreat. I realize that potentially taking 1 hit is less skin than potentially falling down, but often when I see someone go down they are done for, and so I prefer a penalty that is less catastrophic. But it's also a guaranteed penalty they take if they lose the contest, as opposed to the potential penalty of falling down.

I totally agree with your comments about fighting on a cliff side. "Don't get too close to the edge! You might almost, but won't actually, fall over!"

I would just adapt your house rule so that if a combatant fails their retreat contest and has to go into a hazardous hex then they get a chance to grab the cliff edge or whatever.

I was thinking about images and illusions today and thought a wizard could add an Image or Illusion to the situation so that the only vacant hexes available to the retreater are hazardous.

By the way, I also really love the idea of a character being able to knock someone backwards directly into the (potentially hazardous) hex right behind them, but I think that should be some kind of Advanced Shield Bash Talent instead.

Anyway, there's some more words. Hope you're getting some gaming time in if you're locked down like we are.

[Shostak]

Retaining as much speed playing through combat as possible is highly desirable from my point of view. The contested rolls are going to slow things down. I much prefer the simplicity of "You took hits from me and I took none from anyone, and now I'm retreating you HERE." Note, too, that in the original rules, it sounds like the attacker chooses where the oppoenent retreats to. I like that. The Hexagram rules imply the retreated person chooses. I also agree that falling next to a pit or cliff should have some danger to it, even though it is weird that falling anywhere else does not involve possibly falling into an adjacent hex.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Brazen Hussey

I totally agree with your comments about fighting on a cliff side. "Don't get too close to the edge! You might almost, but won't actually, fall over!"

I would just adapt your house rule so that if a combatant fails their retreat contest and has to go into a hazardous hex then they get a chance to grab the cliff edge or whatever.

Yes, I guess I wasn't clear, as that's already how we do it:

If someone has to retreat, but back is to a hazard, they roll 3/DX or fall down. If anyone falls down next to a hazard for whatever reason, then (optionally roll to determine direction and) roll 3/DX again to avoid falling into the hazard.

i.e., it is simply the original pre-Legacy 3/DX roll or fall down, plus a 3/DX to avoid falling into a hazard when you fall down next to one (optionally limited by a random scatter roll).

(BTW, even without the random scatter roll, the number of people we have seen falling into pits with these rules has been pretty low, and none of our PCs ever died from it. But the possibility is fun.)

Originally Posted by Brazen Hussey

I was thinking about images and illusions today and thought a wizard could add an Image or Illusion to the situation so that the only vacant hexes available to the retreater are hazardous.

Yes! And BTW, it becomes wanted to define how deep a pit image/illusion can be made. We set it at 6 feet per hex of image/illusion, so e.g. if you used 4-hex illusion, you could have 4 6-foot hexes, or 2 12-foot pit hexes, or 1 24-foot pit hex.

I think pit image/illusions are another great example of why retreat rules with teeth are fun. Actual pits are pretty rare, but gaining an advantage that tips the scales of a fight by putting an image of a pit behind your foes and having them fall down trying to avoid falling into a pit that isn't there is quite fun. In Legacy RAW, doing that actually works against you because all it does is remove your option to retreat them.

Originally Posted by Brazen Hussey

By the way, I also really love the idea of a character being able to knock someone backwards directly into the (potentially hazardous) hex right behind them, but I think that should be some kind of Advanced Shield Bash Talent instead.

Yeah, I like being able to knock people around the battlefield and into pits - it's one of the joys of GURPS combat. In TFT we would describe the forced retreat rules as doing that sometimes (and used it as a reason to allow forced retreats on people you'd knocked down with damage), but it's not the same cause & effect logic.

Originally Posted by Shostak

... I also agree that falling next to a pit or cliff should have some danger to it, even though it is weird that falling anywhere else does not involve possibly falling into an adjacent hex.

I look at is as: A 5-6-foot-long body falling from standing in a 4-foot-wide hex is likely not to always fall only within that hex, so probably at least some of the body may interact with at least one of the adjacent hexes, without necessarily meaning its center isn't still closest to the center of the original hex for other purposes.

And, I also would be happy to have it be when someone falls you roll a 50% or 3/DX chance the figure ends up lying in a random adjacent hex even if there is no hazard there - but some TFT players like simplicity, so only doing it when there's a hazard removes having to roll for that unless there's a hazard.

[Shostak]

Should you be able to automatically retreat a foe if you inflict enough hits to knock them down? I've played a few skirmishes in which I did that, and allowed the retreated figure to fall into an occupied hex, perhaps precipitating another fall. It slowed things down a bit, but it made for an interesting tactical change.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Should you be able to automatically retreat a foe if you inflict enough hits to knock them down? I've played a few skirmishes in which I did that, and allowed the retreated figure to fall into an occupied hex, perhaps precipitating another fall. It slowed things down a bit, but it made for an interesting tactical change.

Should is a matter of opinion. I have greatly enjoyed that in GURPS. There's always the question of exactly what rules are best for it. Probably best discussed in the House Rules sub forum.

[Shostak]

Giving an automatic retreat on a wound-reaction fall is mostly an attempt to create a consistent effect on a wounded figure, regardless of whether or not they are adjacent to a hazard.

That aside, what about SJ's Hexagram amendments that change who chooses where the figure retreats to? That is a huge changefrom the retreat rules on ITL 118.

Skarg, earlier you referred to an original edition rule that you might fall if you had no hex to retreat into. I remember that, too, but can't find it in my original Advanced Melee. Would you be able to share where that is? Was it actually a holdover from the original Wizard microgame?

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Skarg, earlier you referred to an original edition rule that you might fall if you had no hex to retreat into. I remember that, too, but can't find it in my original Advanced Melee. Would you be able to share where that is? Was it actually a holdover from the original Wizard microgame?

In original Melee (pg 17 of my copy) it reads "If the enemy has no adjacent, vacant hex to retreat to, it must make a saving roll (3 dice against DX) to avoid falling in its original hex."

This gets changed later in Advanced Melee and Death Test 2 (Troll room see #50). And thus also in ITL.

- Advanced Melee pg 18 "If the enemy has no adjacent, vacant hex to retreat to, he does not have to retreat. If the only adjacent vacant hex is dangerous (i.e., fire, water, a pit), he must make a 3-die roll on DX to avoid stepping into it."

- DT2, (old copy pg 18) #50, "If the troll forces a figure to retreat, and the only place to retreat is a pit hex, the figure must make a 3-die saving roll on DX to stand still rather than falling in." Not exactly the same as no place to retreat but similar.

BTW, in DT2 the next sentence is about falling in a hex with a pit adjacent, then you need to roll against 3 v DX to avoid falling into it. Earlier in this topic Skarg said that is his house rule. It is actually from here, in DT2. So, I have always treated it as cannon.


The new ITL pg.102 states "If there is no vacant or fallen-figure
hex adjacent to the foe and farther from the attacker, you
cannot force a retreat." and again on pg 118.