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.

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?

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.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

Yes, thank you both for your feedback.

I too tried to infer if the retreat needed to be in one of the three hexes "away" from the initial position of the attacker. I decided this was the appropriate interpretation. (Otherwise, the combatants would be exchanging sides and typically disengaging.)

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.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

The Attacker doesn't need to force the Defender to turn around to become disengaged. If the Attacker was engaged, then he was in one of the Defender's front hexes; forcing the Defender to retreat means he will become disengaged if he chooses to stand still, rather than advancing into the vacated hex.

I don't think that was the intent, because…

I agree: it specifies that the forced "retreat" must move the Defender away from the Attacker — but what if they weren't facing the Attacker?

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…

1. A gets to choose B's facing, then B always gets it in the back
2. B gets to choose the facing, then B never gets it in the back
3. B retains its previous facing, then A gets a possible tactical advantage, depending on where he chooses to push B and whether to pursue

Option 3 is the most interesting, and (I think) is what the Rule intended.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

Note if only standing still offers a disengagement option then following the victim doesn't offer disengagement only because the victim can turn to force that engagement.

No, because no further attack can occur before the victim moves (and possibly changes facing) again.

It matters because the now disengaged attacker can move freely and/or enter HTH at lower risk.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

I've always had the figure translate to the new hex without changing facing.

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.)

Yes, and more generally, the resulting facing of the defender may be significant.

Assume the following:

1. Side A controls the attacking figure. Figure B of side B was forced to retreat.
2. There are several side A figures in close proximity to figure B.
3. Side A must move first on the following turn.

The resulting facing of figure B (from the retreat) could engage and constrain the movement of any one of several side A figures.

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.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

That is a direct way to resolve the issue.

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:
(Melee, p. 9)

Could this move also apply to retreats?

Skarg has already enlightened me to the sometimes ambiguous and overloaded meaning of move in the rules.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

I think that indeed this: Means that while the figure forcing retreat can choose which (more-distant) hex the retreated figure retreats to, it also qualifies the retreated figure to choose a new facing in that hex.

This is also consistent with the other rules that allow a figure to move a hex outside the movement phase (e.g. when retreating from a Push, or when rolling out from under a larger figure, or when disengaging from HTH).

It's also very easy, and often doesn't matter (but sometimes can, because it can determine who that figure engages, and who might be able to jump the retreated figure in HTH, during the upcoming movement phase).

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

Yeah, this was the way we always played it -- figuring that the character being forced to retreat was being "forced" to by the tactical situation more than anything else. Physical Knockback (or knock down) is an entirely different issue of course.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

It is hard to say what the author's intent was, but the best argument I've seen in this thread is for a uniform rule that the player controlling the figure that moved picks the facing at the end of its movement. It's consistent with stated rules for broadly similar circumstances and I don't believe it violates a clearly stated rule for a similar circumstance. Plus it's straightforward to always do the same thing.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

I can't find anywhere in the rules where the attacker can choose the facing of the defended forced to retreat, nor the side/rear hex they retreat into.

And interesting idea would be allowing the better 'swordsman' to choose which hex the defender retreats into. Thus a character with Expertise or Master (Fencer or Master Fencer) could herd a less skilled opponent. This could have tactical implications by forcing a gap in a formation allowing a flanking attack.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

A reasonable point -- but they might just want to face the source of that attack.

Probably my favorite. Forcing a retreat isn't mind control, after all, just footwork. If the owning player can eke out some advantage from facing, good for him. Maybe he wants to face his attacker, or maybe there's another attacker he considers yet more threatening that he'd rather keep facing. He still got pushed away from the hex he wanted to be in, which can have important tactical consequences. And if he can really turn it into some net benefit -- well, that's an error on the part of the attacker for having forced the retreat in the first place.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

The flip side to this argument is that real historical fencing, which operated in an open space rather than a modern fencing strip, puts a lot of focus on working your way into positions that are effectively equivalent to attacking through a side facing in TFT. This would be possible if combatants who were forced to retreat were not allowed to change their facing as they do so. But, most clever thoughts about versimilitude make for terrible games. So, I don't advocate this sort of thing.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

A counter-counterpoint to that idea is that it would never allow an attack from the side or rear, since the only effect of facing would be on who is engaged or not at the start of the movement phase, during which everyone gets to move and pick facing again before any attacks occur.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

It does not reflect well on this re-release that something this basic and ordinary to combat is so ill-defined. This is not some rare circumstance. It ought to be clearly defined in the rules.

There is 30 years of experience with this system for this sort of issue to be known. Why wasn't this ambiguity dealt with? I find this disheartening.

If this was the only ambiguity it might be forgiveable, but the forum is loaded with similar problems. They can all be fixed by house rules, and in 1979 I was fine with that -- fewer issues than D&D of that era -- but I expect a little more coherence these days.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

I don't think this issue was ever actually an issue in any game I ever played. We assumed that forced retreat was not "turning around and running away" but rather was "backing up." (Which seems to be the clear intent of the rule.) Based on that, the figure's facing remained what it was before the retreat was forced. Therefore, there wasn't any need to overanalyze the situation.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

Yeah, I think I put my post in the wrong retreat thread, it wasn’t about facing but about interesting options for retreat spaces. I’ll delete if poss and try to find a better spot.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

People want different levels of precision and complexity. But at this point any ruling they make will essentially tell half of the players that they've been having fun the wrong way for 30 years and they have to stop. I don't see them doing that.

Best to keep the house rules you like and enjoy the new *content*, which I believe is the emphasis of the new release.

Rock on.

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

Agreed. Also, someone telling me I've been having fun the wrong way for 30 years will have little effect and certainly won't erase the fun.

Respectfully, I disagree. If there is something that needs to be fixed, fix it. If the 30 year veterans don't like the fix, then that's where their ability to house rule "the old way" should come in.

Will do!!!

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

This is they way I always looked at it. I thought there would be specific wording if a character "turned and fled".

Re: Question About Facing After Retreat
 

I always played it that the play forcing the retreat chose the hex (had to force a disengage, so not an adjacent hex) and the player retreating chose the facing.

The rules state who picks the hex.

Since it did not mention facing, it seems to me that the retreater gets to chose his own facing. This makes sense to me: some one has injured you and forcing you back, you can choose to keep your eye on him or watch out for a worse threat.