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.

Well, consider it like you try to run away because you are shot in the back, but you have your dumb friend standing in your way.

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.

Well, consider it like you try to run away because you are shot in the back, but you have your dumb friend standing in your way.

Yeah, but that's also how support works, too

I think it makes sense. With "support", you are physically next to the unit supporting. So if you can't end there, you can't get the support. Even though the space you would land on is blocked by a friendly unit, you still aren't next to them - the enemy unit between you is still causing the lack of support, and you could think of it as that enemy unit is preventing the friendly unit from providing the backup you need.

It's much better, in my opinion, than allowing long-distance support (especially since the long-distance support would only apply for MORE retreats).

I agree that makes more sense, it's just something I think could use a bit of clarifying in the flying rules. It's really not a huge issue, but if this game's going to be robust enough for organized play - and ongoing expansions - I think refining the rules to be as sharply written as possible is essential!

Also goes back to the initial issue of retreat. I think that if the unit wasn't supported initially, the retreat should occur. Since you could devise various scenarios with flying units of getting support after retreating less hexes than required. So I think a good answer about situations like this would be good. Obviously won't cover every situation but a good majority.

And also the fact that a flying unit has to land...I think there were issues with dragons in 1st edition Battlelore and support. But sounds like they didn't get resolved either when moved to 2nd edition. If memory serves there, you could selectively had support or not....but don't hold me to that since it has been 3 years since I last played 1st edition. I know..don't introduce flying and everything else is easier!! Sigh!