Hello!

I was wondering if a unit with the Flying ability can choose to ignore the support and choose to retreat over the friendly unit that was supporting him (as long as retreating makes it land on an available hex).

According to the rules, looks like Support has no choice, so I think a Roc Warrior will not retreat further if supported.

That's a good question. Support reads 'A unit is supported if it is forced to retreat into a hex occupied by a friendly unit' and Flying reads 'a unit with Flying ability can move into or through... hexes that contain other units, but it cannot end its movement in a hex occupied by another unit.' I think the crux of the matter is 'into' - even though you aren't necessarily ending your movement there, a Flying unit is definitely moving into a hex occupied by a friendly unit. The way I read it, since the Roc Warrior would be forced to retreat into (even if it could otherwise go through) a hex occupied by a friendly unit, it is then supported, and therefore, as per the Retreats rules, 'ignores all remaining retreats' (and so does not go through).

That's how I would rule it if it were my living room, at least - a solid FAQ question, certainly!

Good question, but no need to be FAQed since it's covered in the rules. Ref Guide, pag. 4, under Flying, 6th bullet point:

A unit with the Flying ability can retreat through hexes that contain other units, as long as it ends its movement in an unoccupied hex. Any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal.

I'm not so sure, I thought that applied to hexes containing enemy units to prevent a flyer from being killed easily by being surrounded. Wouldn't the flyer still count as being supported if forced to retreat into a friendly unit and stop retreating?

Yep, fair point. Stll, if so, I'm wondering why the quoted Flying rule has not the wording " can retreat through hexes that contain enemy units ". "Other" units seems to me like a more general wording, that should leave open the chance to gnore support.

Curious to hear Scott on this one. But yes, I imagine I can add the question to the FAQ list, no probs.

One reason not to use the word enemy is because they planned on introducing neutral units like the Dragon and giant.

I don't think so; I'm pretty sure neutral units are not considered any longer neutral once in the battlefield (otherwise they won't be affected by too many cards and effects, inducing quite a headache rules-wise), but friendly for the faction they fight for, and enemy for the other faction.

I was thinking of the scenario included in the Dragon expansion where both factions compete to kill the Dragon.

Not so sure it could work either: the Dragon will probably be considered enemy to both factions

(sorry for nitpicking...)

A unit with the Flying ability can retreat through hexes that contain other units, as long as it ends its movement in an unoccupied hex. Any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal.

I also read that as being in circumstances when the unit is not supported and when non-friendly units would restrict its retreat (since friendly units would be supporting by default). It seems like either Flying units can't be supported if they suffer enough retreats to successfully move them to an empty hex (since they are 'moving through' not 'into'), that support is an optional choice made by the defender, or that flying units that can be supported are, and therefore ignore all further retreats (which is how I would read it).

Like in this example - if the Chaos Lord rolls his Terrify ability and a retreat, normally resulting in 3 retreats, is the Roc Warrior supported? If not, what if the Chaos Lord only rolled the Terrify for 2 retreats blocking the Roc with the Obscene? I guess it depends on whether or not Support is optional for Flying units - I'm inclined to think it's not.

Yeah, that's a good point. I'm torn: thematically, it has not much sense that ground units can support a Flying creature, and the wording is not 100% clear. On the other hand, you are right by saying that either you're supported, or you're not, and you cannot choose to be supported when it's more convenient for you.

So, agreed, possibly support trumps flying, and the Roc must be supported when it's possible.

I think Rocs can be supported just like other units. Not sure why the wording was chosen the way it was, but I don't think it was meant to exclude them.

That said, the way I read the rules is that support is NOT optional - for good or ill, when you are supported, you are supported. Granted, in almost every case you'd WANT to be supported like that, but there are times that it might be tactically useful to not be; unfortunately, I don't think the rules as written would allow you to intentionally ignore it.

Thanks Scott for sharing your view on the thing. Aye, in the end, agreed

Morning!

This is the answer from FFG. It looks like yes, a Flying unit can choose to ignore Support.

"This is a good question, and one that is not addressed directly in the rules. On page 4 of the Reference Book, under the “Flying” section, we see:

“A unit with the Flying ability can retreat through hexes that contain other units, as long as it ends its movement in an unoccupied hex. Any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal.”

This seems to suggest that a unit with the Flying ability can choose to ignore the support, and instead retreat directly over the would-be supporting unit.

Derrick Fuchs

Associate Game Producer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]"

It does not look like a definitive answer, so I have responded to the email asking if that is the final verdict for now. Shall post response.

More definite answer right here!

"Actually, after some further internal discussion, if a Flying unit is forced to retreat into a hex that contains a friendly unit, the Flying unit is supported and ignores all retreats. It does not have the choice of being supported or not. However, if a Flying unit is forced to retreat into a hex that contains an enemy unit, he can retreat through that hex instead.

Best,

Derrick Fuchs"

So yes, support has no choice.

Glad Derrick nailed it Ok, good, thanks for posting both answers

Thanks, Aaronzea!

OK, here's a followup question that I think is covered by Derrick's response but official clarification would be nice.

A Roc Warrior is forced to retreat 2 hexes that are both occupied as follows:

Roc Warrior - Viper Legion - Rune Golem

How much, if any, damage, does he suffer as a result since he can't occupy either hex? From Derrick's response I think none. He flies over the Viper Legion and then tries to retreat into a friendly unit, is thus supported and ignores all retreats?

From Derrick's response, I gather that the Roc Warrior will suffer 2 damage.

The way I see it is that the Roc Warrior has to resolve 2 retreats.

It cannot resolve those 2 retreats.

Therefore, as per the rules, it suffers 2 damage.

My very same reading. The Roc needs to end in an hex unoccupied by units. The first retreat forces the Roc to enter a hex occupied by enemies. Which could be fine IF the second retreats would move him on an empty hex. Which does not happen, since the Golem are supporting. So that it would end up being stuck over the Viper Legion, which cannot happen per rules. Hence he suffers 2 dmg

I'd argue that it doesn't move at all, because it's supported. In this example:

If the Chaos Lord rolls Terrify for 2 retreats on the Roc Warrior, according to Derek's note here, the Roc is "forced to retreat into a hex that contains an enemy unit" but "he can retreat through that hex instead" thanks to Flying. So, since the Roc can move through that hex, the Roc Warrior now "is forced to retreat into a hex that contains a friendly unit" and therefore "the Flying unit is supported and ignores all retreats." I'd argue that, going by that previous ruling, the Roc Warrior is supported, and takes no damage, because he doesn't have to retreat in the first place, and so ends his movement in the same unoccupied hex he started in.

In a related question, has the issue of a flying unit retreating through a hex with an enemy flying unit come up? There's nothing written to imply it would work any differently, but it seemed germane to the discussion.

Edit. here's a few rules notes in exploring this:

Support : "A friendly unit is supported if it is forced to retreat into a hex occupied by a friendly unit. While supported, a unit ignore all retreats; ignored retreats do not cause any damage."

Retreats : "If a retreating unit would be forced to retreat into an adjacent hex containing a friendly unit, it becomes Supported. The retreating units ends its movement and ignores all remaining retreats."

Flying : "A unit with Flying can retreat though hexes that contain other units, as long as it ends its movement in an unoccupied hex. Any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal."

OK, so the Roc Warrior isn't supported until it is in a hex adjacent to the Rock Golems, in this case the same hex as the Viper Legion. But, it can retreat through hexes containing enemy units as long as it ends it's movement in an unoccupied hex, which with 2 retreats it can't, UNLESS it doesn't move in the first place because it would have moved into a hex occupied by a friendly unit and therefore ignores ALL retreats retrocatively. So I think this question really comes down to how retreats deal damage: in one cumulative step accounting for all factors related to the retreat, or on a hex-by-hex basis as the unit moves while retreating? If the Rune Golems are preventing the retreat by occupying the hex (as per Flying), aren't they also occupying the hex when it comes to Support?

One read would be that Flying is essentially nullfied because the Roc can't end its movement in an unoccupied hex and so it never moves through the Viper Legion to become adjacent to the Rock Golems in the first place, and therefore takes 2 damage for unresolved retreats. Another read is that the Roc retreats its first hex through the Viper Legion and then retreats the second hex into the space occupied by the Rock Golems and is therefore supported and ignores all retreats and takes 0 damage. Or a read somewhere in the middle - The Roc retreats its first hex through the Viper Legion and then retreats the second hex into the space occupied by the Rock Golems and is therefore supported but cannot end its movement there, and takes 1 damage for unresolved retreats before it became supported.

And what if the Chaos Lord also rolled a Morale result in addition to Terrify, and we were talking about 3 retreats here - there's an unoccupied space the Roc Warrior can move into past the Rock Golems, but since support isn't optional for Flying units, isn't the Flying unit forced to retreat into a hex occupied by a friendly unit and therefore become supported? If it was 3 retreats and there was an empty hex between the Viper Legion and the Rock Golems the Roc Warrior would definitely be supported, right? Or, is there a disctinction being made between 'moving into' and 'moving through' in terms of becoming adjacent?

Edit 2. After some consideration, perhaps the intention of the Flying retreat and support rule is something like: " If it would end its movement in another unoccupied hex, a unit with Flying retreats through hexes occupied by enemy units. If not, any retreats that cannot be resolved cause damage as normal. If a unit with Flying would be forced to retreat into, or through, an adjacent hex occupied by a friendly unit, it is only supported if the hex it is currently moving through is unoccupied. "?

Thanks for the picture and digging into the reference manual... does a better job of explaining things than my question

Anxious to see what the correct answer is. With more flying units on the way, it's more likely to come up.

I actually asked this, and got a response that they are looking into a good way to word it, but I think what they were saying is that in that case, the Roc is NOT supported, and would take damage (IE, that it really only is supported if it can end in the space adjacent to the friendly unit). The previous ruling's wording didn't account for that aspect.

I'll let you know if I get a follow-up, though.

Thanks Scott!

I actually asked this, and got a response that they are looking into a good way to word it, but I think what they were saying is that in that case, the Roc is NOT supported, and would take damage (IE, that it really only is supported if it can end in the space adjacent to the friendly unit). The previous ruling's wording didn't account for that aspect.

I'll let you know if I get a follow-up, though.

It's a little weird, in that your own unit is the reason you're taking damage from a retreat, though, since without the Rock Golem the Roc Warrior would be fine. I assume that is the ruling as well, but it'll be nice to have it clarified.