Retreats Revamped?

[Shostak]

Some proposed tweaks to "Retreats Revamped?" in Hexagram 4.

• If a figure cannot retreat they suffer -2DX the following turn.
• In the contest to resist a forced retreat adjDX is used and attacker rolls against the higher of ST and adjDX
• If the defender loses, they retreat AND suffer -1DX the following turn

Rationale: there should be a consequence to not retreating into a dangerous hex; since currently there is no risk involved in resisting a retreats, they will tend to be resisted unless retreating is beneficial; DX challenges should be subject to all adjustments (why should a figure not suffer from factors that reduce DX?); this gives some attention to the role ST might play, and sinc the attacker obviously has some advantage, the possibility of using a better stat should go to them.

[phiwum]

These rules obviously complicate retreats, but are pretty sensible.

I'm not sure about the first one, to be honest. Is having one's back against the wall an asset or a liability? At present, it's an asset (aside from the ability of the opponent to initiate HTH). You've turned it into a significant liability. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just don't know.

The net effect of these house rules are that being hit hurts more than it does now. Even a small hit will cost a DX penalty next attack unless you win the DX test against the opponent's better attribute. This will make the first hit in a combat more decisive in who wins. I wonder whether this is a good or bad thing.

As it happens, I've always had trouble remembering the forced retreat rules to begin with! I need to get those ingrained in my poor, addled noggin.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

These rules obviously complicate retreats, but are pretty sensible.

I'm not sure about the first one, to be honest. Is having one's back against the wall an asset or a liability? At present, it's an asset (aside from the ability of the opponent to initiate HTH). You've turned it into a significant liability. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just don't know.

It stays an asset so long as you hit your opponent on the turn you get hit. But in the case with your back to the wall, you have the option of resisting the retreat. If you lose, you suffer the -2DX, but at least you have a chance of not suffering it.

This will make the first hit in a combat more decisive in who wins. I wonder whether this is a good or bad thing.

First unanswered hit, yes, though you are free to defend (and wait for an opening!) on the turn you suffer a penalty.

[phiwum]

You've got me thinking, Shostak, not about retreat rules but trampling rules.

Per RAW (ITL 104), "If a small figure has no adjacent empty hex to step to, a large figure may not move onto it to push it back." This has always bugged me. When a small bugger is cornered, he should be at disadvantage against a Rampaging Trampler[1], but instead he is at advantage.

I wonder if we could adjust your houserules for this situation. It's different than the contest to avoid a forced retreat, since the issue there is that failure adds (according your your rule) an additional penalty, aside from the retreat itself. I'd say that if the Tramplee (technical term) fails his DX roll, then the outcome is the same whether he's cornered or not. However, if he makes his DX roll, then he can't just move to an adjacent space because tain't none.

So, what one could do is this:

When a multihex figure pushes back a smaller figure and there is no adjacent empty hex to step to, then the push back fails and the larger figure remains in his original position. The smaller figure also remains in his original position, but will suffer a 2 DX penalty during his next action.

[1] See the forthcoming New School Monsters for details on the Rampaging Trampler.

[Shostak]

That seems not only reasonable to me, but a good way to apply a mechanic consistently across similar situations.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Some proposed tweaks to "Retreats Revamped?" in Hexagram 4.

• If a figure cannot retreat they suffer -2DX the following turn.
• In the contest to resist a forced retreat adjDX is used and attacker rolls against the higher of ST and adjDX
• If the defender loses, they retreat AND suffer -1DX the following turn

Rationale: there should be a consequence to not retreating into a dangerous hex; since currently there is no risk involved in resisting a retreats, they will tend to be resisted unless retreating is beneficial; DX challenges should be subject to all adjustments (why should a figure not suffer from factors that reduce DX?); this gives some attention to the role ST might play, and sinc the attacker obviously has some advantage, the possibility of using a better stat should go to them.

Originally Posted by Shostak

It stays an asset so long as you hit your opponent on the turn you get hit. But in the case with your back to the wall, you have the option of resisting the retreat. If you lose, you suffer the -2DX, but at least you have a chance of not suffering it.


First unanswered hit, yes, though you are free to defend (and wait for an opening!) on the turn you suffer a penalty.

There's a problem with the rules as originally written and what you said in the second post, Shostak. According to the rules in the first post, if there's no place to retreat to, then I suffer DX -2. That doesn't say anything about applying only if I've failed the contest. And even if it means "when forced to retreat", then it looks like the first and third combine to yield a -3 DX or a -2 DX if you choose not to contest the retreat and take your lumps.

So, I think you meant something like this, where X is the one forcing retreat and Y the one reacting.

(1) If Y resists the retreat, roll an attribute contest. Y uses his adjDX and X the better of ST and adjDX.

(2) If Y wins the contest, the forced retreat has no effect.

(3) If X wins the contest, Y must retreat and furthermore suffers a -1 DX penalty on his next action.

(4) If Y either elects to retreat or loses the contest as above and there is no hex for Y to retreat to, he suffers a -2 DX penalty on his next action. This is in addition to the penalty in (3) in the case of a failed contest.

Furthermore, the suggested houserules for trampling would include the following:

(5) A multihex figure may attempt to push back a smaller figure even if there is no empty hex adjacent to the latter. In this case, the smaller figure may either elect to fall in their own hex. Else, the smaller figure makes a 3/adjDX roll and, if successful, prevents the push back but suffers a -2 DX penalty on his next action.

Okay, so now some problems with (5) compared to the retreat houserules. (5) involves only an adjDX test in order to prevent the pushback. This makes sense when trying to roll out of the way, but if you're trying to prevent entry into your hex, a contest seems more reasonable. If it's like the contest in (1) above, it will usually be pointless -- if we allow the trampler to select the better of ST and adjDX, then he's likely to choose ST which is usually over 20 for these big dudes.

It's also hard to see why keeping a big dude from encroaching on your hex would involve an adjDX contest.

So, I like the idea of allowing big dudes to push back even there's nowhere to push back to. And I think the result shouldn't be automatic knockdown and potential trample. But I'm not completely happy with either an adjDX test or and adjDX contest and a combination adjDX/ST (or ST/ST) contest is barely worth rolling the dice.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

So, I think you meant something like this, where X is the one forcing retreat and Y the one reacting.

(1) If Y resists the retreat, roll an attribute contest. Y uses his adjDX and X the better of ST and adjDX.

(2) If Y wins the contest, the forced retreat has no effect.

(3) If X wins the contest, Y must retreat and furthermore suffers a -1 DX penalty on his next action.

(4) If Y either elects to retreat or loses the contest as above and there is no hex for Y to retreat to, he suffers a -2 DX penalty on his next action. This is in addition to the penalty in (3) in the case of a failed contest.

Yes.

Furthermore, the suggested houserules for trampling would include the following:

(5) A multihex figure may attempt to push back a smaller figure even if there is no empty hex adjacent to the latter. In this case, the smaller figure may either elect to fall in their own hex. Else, the smaller figure makes a 3/adjDX roll and, if successful, prevents the push back but suffers a -2 DX penalty on his next action.

Okay, so now some problems with (5) compared to the retreat houserules. (5) involves only an adjDX test in order to prevent the pushback. This makes sense when trying to roll out of the way, but if you're trying to prevent entry into your hex, a contest seems more reasonable. If it's like the contest in (1) above, it will usually be pointless -- if we allow the trampler to select the better of ST and adjDX, then he's likely to choose ST which is usually over 20 for these big dudes.

It's also hard to see why keeping a big dude from encroaching on your hex would involve an adjDX contest.

So, I like the idea of allowing big dudes to push back even there's nowhere to push back to. And I think the result shouldn't be automatic knockdown and potential trample. But I'm not completely happy with either an adjDX test or and adjDX contest and a combination adjDX/ST (or ST/ST) contest is barely worth rolling the dice.

True, the very strong will always win unless you house rule rolls of 3-5 are auto successes for the defender. Perhaps a better way would be for the contest to be ajdDX, but Y has to has to roll 4d if weaker than X. That would give your average giant even or better odds against figures with adjDX as high as 13, and dragons would pretty much just win.