Question About Facing After Retreat

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by hcobb

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 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.

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Another possibility is that the retreating figure must face the hex from which it retreated.

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

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

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.

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.