Question About Facing After Retreat

Anaraxes · 04-28-2019, 06:45 PM

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.

04-28-2019, 06:45 PM	#3
Anaraxes 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 06:52 PM.