So ultimately it didn't make a difference in the outcome of the game... but I have a question on Unstoppable.

(Here is the wording on the card for reference: "Unstoppable: Play during your opponent's Attack Step when a friendly unit would be eliminated by an adjacent enemy unit. Before that unit is eliminated, it may counter.")

My Citadel Guards attacked my opponents Blood Harvesters - my attack got him down to a single Blood Harvester and forced a retreat which would push him off the map... essentially killing the unit off completely.

He played Unstoppable to attack before he was destroyed - he argued essentially that the retreat I rolled destroys the unit so he should get to use the card to get in the counter attack. I disagreed as I felt that the retreat would essentially have removed his adjacency - even though it's the inability to perform the retreat that kills the unit off... (Regardless - I chose not to argue as I was very much in the lead at this point and didn't want to make any bad feelings when the victory was pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point etc.)

Thoughts? Did we play it right with him getting in an attack? Or should that card not have been playable?

Yeah, he gets the counter. The sequence is:

- apply the damage

- resolve the retreat

- unresolvable retreat destroys unit

- conditions to trigger Unstoppable met

- counter

- defending unit destroyed

Ok - In my brain I reasoned that the retreat (even though he can't move back) would have removed the availability for a counter - even with a card.

Guess it makes sense.

I see what you mean; the point is that the Unstoppable card (btw, thanks for posting the text, it's really kind and makes the life of everyone easier ) has as keyword "eliminated"; it doesn't specify how you have to be eliminated, hence, be it a direct hit, an unresolvable retreat, or any other game effect, it's enough that the unit is eliminated to trigger the counter

No problem on including the wording. Always makes it easier for these discussions!

Actually it does specify "eliminated by an adjacent enemy unit." - I think this might be where I get hung up... because it wasn't my attack damage to the unit that caused the elimination - it was the retreat damage from going off the map - the retreat that normally would have eliminated the ability to counter.

The edge of the board would be just like if the unit were surrounded by your units or was retreating to a river hex. The retreats don't resolve so the unit remains adjacent and suffers damage instead.

Right - my last post is silliness... I meant to say that was where I "got" hung up and was trying to explain my thinking process now . last night. (Ugh - I need to stop trying to make quick posts while I work!)

I appreciate the clarity of this thread on unresolvable retreats.

Thanks you two!

Right - my last post is silliness... I meant to say that was where I "got" hung up and was trying to explain my thinking process now . last night. (Ugh - I need to stop trying to make quick posts while I work!)

I appreciate the clarity of this thread on unresolvable retreats.

Thanks you two!

No worries. I wasn't trying to correct your post. I was just adding my interpretation in my words in case someone else (not you) who reads this thread would see another explanation of why Unstoppable would be playable so I could support Julia's explanation. I didn't meant to suggest that you still weren't understanding it and I hope I didn't offend.

Not offended one bit! (Well - maybe at my own ability to type coherently today... but that's all on me!)

I am glad for the discussion though as it helped to clear up for me at least the understanding of unresolvable retreats. I've had the chance to play twice now and this is quickly becoming one of my favorite games. Can't wait to get more plays in.