[MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

A combatant with Basic Move 11, and thus a Step of 2, is attacked from an adjacent hex, and decides to use the retreat in his Active Defense to Slip toward them into their hex and Evades the Attacker ending his step in the hex behind him. (Maybe he uses Acrobatics and rolls between the legs, or flips over the opponent to add the benefits of an Acrobatic Dodge.)

If the Attacker has used his step prior to the attack, he cannot change facing to turn around, and the defender can use his step at the start of his turn to do an about-face and attack. Since the defender evaded during the attacker's turn, he is starting his turn in his opponent's back hex.

So this is a true attack from the behind originating in the Back hex and not considered a "Runaround", is that correct?

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

The way I run it, if you start your turn in the foe's back hex he can't defend. The only exception (for me) is a grapple, 'cause if someone's grabbing you from behind, it's obvious he's there.

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

Thanks for your response.


I'm just asking about the intended interpretation of the RAW...

If you're grappled from behind, they are in your hex and not your back hex... so unless there is a SM difference (or stretching, or Telekinesis..etc), you can't be grappled from your back hex... they're in your hex!

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

I'd have to say no.
pg391 Runaround Attacks reads to me as
it's only a true attack from behind if the victim doesn't know you're there. It isn't about how long you've been there.

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

I would say this still counts as a round about. There is basically no way the attacker does not know that the target is now being him and that an attack is likely.

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

TG introduced the concept of grappling with in-hex facing, because one obviously can grab from the front or back.

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

I agree the same rationale regarding run around attacks seem to be relevant.

If someone vaulted over you etc, it's not exactly a mystery as to where they've ended up

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

My reading is that merely knowing there is a foe behind you is not the same as knowing you're being attacked that round. I.e. An attack as part of a runaround allows for an Active Defense because you see the initiation and at least part of the development of that specific Attack Maneuver. For an attack that starts out in your back hex, you do not get an Active Defense. (That's my interpretation anyway.)

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

I generally interpret runaround attack as anytime you (the defender) don't get an action between the move and the attack (and of course the run-around-er started not-behind-you). Because this prevents an exploit of the turn-based system.

So I'd call this Slip situation a runaround attack.

Re: [MA] Retreat to Slip behind
 

Quandary
I want to agree - if someone is behind you and you choose not to move such that they are no longer in your back hex, well, ouch.
If, however, you know someone is behind you, aren't you gonna assume they're gonna try... so you'd at least have Dodge, -2 Parry?
But I'm going with Runaround for a Slip - smack. Just unsure now what I'd do for Slip - target takes his turn - smack...