Forcing Retreat in Melee / TFT

[Aman]

In Melee, under "Forcing Retreat" it seems to indicate that you force someone to retreat if you Hit them and don't get Hit in return.

"Hit" seems to indicate "taking damage" not just being Hit [which may result in no damage due to a lousy damage roll or armor, etc], because of this parenthetical statement "...hits taken by the enemy's armor don't count".

My Legacy "In the Labyrinth" book removes that explanatory phrase, and seems to indicate that any Hit [and not being Hit, regardless of damage] allows you to force someone back.

So I'm presently inclined to play "Melee" with you need to do damage to Force a Retreat, and change it later should I use ITL.

But I'm open to the opinion of others better informed!

[phiwum]

The actual quote from ITL Legacy is this:

Originally Posted by ITL 118

A figure that put hits on an enemy figure by any physical,
non-missile attack, and is not hit itself that turn, may force
the enemy to retreat one hex at the end of the turn.

I think "put hits" means "wounds" here, so if you don't penetrate the armor, you didn't put hits on the enemy figure.

There is a difference between "put hits" and "hits" in the way I read it. If you make your to-hit roll, then you hit the enemy, but you don't put hits on him unless he actually takes wounds as a result.

[Aman]

Originally Posted by phiwum

The actual quote from ITL Legacy is this:


I think "put hits" means "wounds" here, so if you don't penetrate the armor, you didn't put hits on the enemy figure.

There is a difference between "put hits" and "hits" in the way I read it. If you make your to-hit roll, then you hit the enemy, but you don't put hits on him unless he actually takes wounds as a result.

I think that's it, per Melee.
I wonder if they changed it for Legacy ITL.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

There is a difference between "put hits" and "hits" in the way I read it. If you make your to-hit roll, then you hit the enemy, but you don't put hits on him unless he actually takes wounds as a result.

In the essay "Retreats Revamped" in Hexagram #4, by Steve Jackson says this in an example, "I have just put a hit on you, and I was unhurt during the turn." This specifically mentions being unhurt as a condition necessary to force a retreat, so we can confidently interpret "put hits" and "inflicted hits" to mean "wound".

[Bill_in_IN]

I concur with phiwum's and Shostak's assessment.

You must wound your opponent and take no damage that same turn for the Forced Retreat option to be available.

As a GM, I've forgotten to remind when this option is available. I thank the OP for discussing it.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by phiwum

The actual quote from ITL Legacy is this:

Originally Posted by ITL 118
A figure that put hits on an enemy figure by any physical,
non-missile attack, and is not hit itself that turn, may force
the enemy to retreat one hex at the end of the turn.

I think "put hits" means "wounds" here, so if you don't penetrate the armor, you didn't put hits on the enemy figure.

There is a difference between "put hits" and "hits" in the way I read it. If you make your to-hit roll, then you hit the enemy, but you don't put hits on him unless he actually takes wounds as a result.

I assume this means ANY DAMAGE to the one forcing a retreat:
Original Attacker Joe makes contact with his Mace on victim Sam and hurts Sam. Then Sam attacks Joe and bangs against Joe's armor and does not penetrate. (Sam is now Forced Retreat bait.). But wait, Edgar takes a shot at Joe and pierces his armor and damages Joe. Joe has received damage this turn, even though it was not from Sam. Does this mean that Joe cannot Force Retreat Sam?

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I assume this means ANY DAMAGE to the one forcing a retreat:
Original Attacker Joe makes contact with his Mace on victim Sam and hurts Sam. Then Sam attacks Joe and bangs against Joe's armor and does not penetrate. (Sam is now Forced Retreat bait.). But wait, Edgar takes a shot at Joe and pierces his armor and damages Joe. Joe has received damage this turn, even though it was not from Sam. Does this mean that Joe cannot Force Retreat Sam?

Nice catch there! That's important.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I assume this means ANY DAMAGE to the one forcing a retreat:
Original Attacker Joe makes contact with his Mace on victim Sam and hurts Sam. Then Sam attacks Joe and bangs against Joe's armor and does not penetrate. (Sam is now Forced Retreat bait.). But wait, Edgar takes a shot at Joe and pierces his armor and damages Joe. Joe has received damage this turn, even though it was not from Sam. Does this mean that Joe cannot Force Retreat Sam?

Yes, that is correct. The person forcing the retreat cannot have been wounded that turn.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I assume this means ANY DAMAGE to the one forcing a retreat:
Original Attacker Joe makes contact with his Mace on victim Sam and hurts Sam. Then Sam attacks Joe and bangs against Joe's armor and does not penetrate. (Sam is now Forced Retreat bait.). But wait, Edgar takes a shot at Joe and pierces his armor and damages Joe. Joe has received damage this turn, even though it was not from Sam. Does this mean that Joe cannot Force Retreat Sam?

Originally Posted by Shostak

Yes, that is correct. The person forcing the retreat cannot have been wounded that turn.

I concur with this additional scenario.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I concur with this additional scenario.

And I concur with this concur. ;-) Seriously.