The following ambiguities exist with respect to Forcing Retreat:
- Resulting facings
- Multiple attackers eligible to retreat same target
- Multiple figures can be forced to retreat
- Attacker could disengage from third figure after forced retreat
Some of these topics have been discussed before on the TFT list:
- http://tft.brainiac.com/archive/0311/msg00114.html (Questions about forcing retreat, 2003-11-21)
- http://tft.brainiac.com/archive/0211/msg00050.html (Force Retreat, 2002-11-11)
Resulting facings?
Basic and Advanced Melee (p.18) state nothing about facing with respect to forcing retreat.
Forcing retreat (Melee)
A figure that hit an enemy figure (missile or thrown weapon hits, or hits taken by the enemy’s armor, don’t count) and is NOT hit itself, may force the enemy to retreat one hex at the end of the turn. The victorious player moves the enemy figure one hex in any direction, into any hex that is vacant or contains only a fallen figure. He may then choose EITHER to stay still OR to move into the hex, from which the enemy retreated. If the enemy has no adjacent, vacant hex to retreat to, it must make a saving roll (3 dice against DX) to avoid falling in its original hex.)
The combat example in basic Melee illustrates an example of forced retreat, but does not discuss facing details. The Advanced Melee combat example doesn't cover forced retreat at all.
Possible Resolutions
- Consider that facing doesn't matter, since forced retreats occur at the end of a round. However, since movement occurs at the start of the following round, facing is important as it determines which figures are engaged or disengaged.
- Facing does not change for either figure after the displacements due to forced retreat. Seems a bit restrictive, but is a simple solution.
- Any facing is possible for either figure; each player decides his figure's facing after retreat moves. This can give an advantage to the attackee, especially if he was retreated by someone attacking from his rear hex. In this case, he could turn around and engage the attacker after the retreat, if the attacker followed.
- Facing of the retreated figure does not change. Facing can change at most 60 degrees for the attacker, in the direction that the attacker takes to follow, but only if it follows. Since an attacker can only attack a figure in its front three hexes [edit: What about pole weapon attacks?], if it retreats that figure, its facing would change
- 60 degrees to the left if the retreated figure was to its front-left,
- 60 degress to the right if the retreated figure was to its front-right,
- otherwise, the facing stays the same (the retreated figure was directly in front).
Multiple attackers eligible to retreat same target?
Based on the rules for forcing retreat, it is possible that multiple figures (A, B, C) be eligible to force the retreat of the same figure (X). However, the rules don't address how this should be resolved.
Possible Resolutions
- X can be forced to retreat by more than one of A, B, C. This resolution doesn't make much sense, since X was only in one hex during the attacks, and it will be difficult to decide where X would end up.
- X cannot be forced to retreat by more than one of A, B, C. At most one of them can force a retreat on X and, if desired, follow. In the case of non-colluding attackers (i.e., A, B, or C are not all on the same team), the order of deciding who forces the retreat is the order in which the attacks were initially made (order of highest adjDex). If the attacks were made in order of A, B, C, then A decides first whether to force a retreat and follow. If A decides not to force, then the option passes to the next eligible attacker (B), etc. However, once X has been forced to retreat, no further retreats or movements are possible.
- X cannot be forced to retreat by more than one of A, B, C. In the case of non-colluding attackers (i.e., A, B, or C are not all on the same team), the first attacker (highest adjDex) decides whether or not to force retreat and follow. No others are given the choice.
- X cannot be forced to retreat by more than one of A, B, C. In the case of non-colluding attackers (i.e., A, B, or C are not all on the same team), a single die is thrown by each of the non-colluding attacking teams to decide which can force the retreat.
Multiple figures can be forced to retreat
Suppose that a figure on each side is able to force a retreat. An order must be determined for the forced retreat, because the choice of the destination hex (of the retreated figures or the following attackers) could cause collisions.
Resolutions
- The order of deciding forced retreats would be by adjDX of the attackers, just as for actions. Nothing happens simultaneously.
Attacker could disengage from third figure after forced retreat
Can a figure that forces a retreat of a second become subsequently disengaged from a third figure by occupying the forced figure's former hex?
Resolutions
- (David Michael Grouchy II, <david_michael_grouchy_ii@hotmail.com>) "Yes. The third figure had [its] chance to attack already this turn. And a forced retreat means the character took no damage, from any source. The only requirement is that the second figure's former hex be located in such a place that moving into it will disengage the character.
Before this becomes [too] confusing here are two specific examples. As always, this is just the "way I play". As such it may be totally wrong.
Bart has a goblin directly in front of him and an orc at his back. Both the orc and goblin either miss or do zero damage this turn. Bart hits and wounds the goblin. At the end of the turn after all movements and actions, bart gets to forceback the goblin. Optionally he may follow up the goblin occupying the hex just emptied.
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ orc \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
positions during actions
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ orc \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
force back
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ orc \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
optional follow up
The way I read this, bart is still engaged. But by the goblin, and not the orc. The orc is not cheated of his attack, because he already got one during actions (at Dx+4), and next turn he can easily re-engage bart.
As to the [possible breaking through of the] defencive line...
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob2 \_____/
/ \ / \
/ gob1 \_____/ gob3 \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
positions during actions
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ gob1 \_____/ gob2 \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
force back
_____
\ / \ /
\_____/ gob \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ bart \_____/
/ \ / \
/ gob1 \_____/ gob3 \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
/ \ / \
/ \_____/ \
\ / \ /
\_____/ \_____/
optional follow up
[Whether] or not bart is still engaged by gob1 & gob3 at this point doesn't matter. They can easily change facing next turn to re-engage. But for Bart to be able to punch into the line like this (into not through) all three goblins had to do zero damage, and Bart had to hit and wound.
--David Michael Grouchy II