1) Rule Question:
Ok, retreat is a pretty clear. But what happens, if extra retreating units have two possibilities to retreat - one friendly area with 8 units and an empty area without units.

Must retreating units retreat to friendly area (and be destroyed) or can retreat to empty area (and be "only" routed but alive)?

The rulebook suggests that you must first retreat to a friendly hex if available, and if not, then you can retreat to an empty hex. But it seems strange to be punished for having a friendly adjacent hex full of units, and rewards for only having an adjacent empty hex to retreat to

ANSWER: The retreating units must always move into a friendly area if able. In your example, this would require you to exceed the limit of 8 units and be required to destroy some.

2) Rule Question:
There are a few tactics cards that force neutrals to retreat from a hex, even if they are allied with an opponent.
What happens in this situation.
I control three adjacent hexes.
One is a kingdom hex that I control but have no units in.
One is a hex with 5 of my units (humans)
One is a hex with 1 human units (mine) and 1 GIANT that is allied with me. There rest of the adjacent hexes are enemy controlled

My opponent plays a tactics card on my GIANT , forcing it to retreat. Card states if it cant retreat to an empty or uncontrolled hex, it is destroyed. What options do I have?

Can the GIANT retreat into my unoccupied kingdom hex? I assume not?

Can the giant retreat into my other occupied hex so that it stays my ally? or must it be destroyed?

ANSWER: In your example, the neutral units cannot retreat (due to all adjacent areas being controlled) and are destroyed.

3) Rule Question:
In regards to that tactic card lightning which does 4 damage at the start of combat.
Must that damage be applied to standing units before routed units?

ANSWER: Yes, the damage must be assigned to standing units if able .

.

thanks for sharing

mateooo said:

I think I'll be house-ruling that one for my own games. I really don't like that I'm forced to destroy these units when another option is available and I don't see how changing this one detail would grossly imbalance anything (the retreating units are still routed after all.)

The other two rulings I can live with

well, its a little strange that by retreating you can claim new lands... but i agree... better really plan your battles so you have a safe place to retreat.

also consider that you could more easily bypass a stronghold, by purposefully attacking an enemy stronghold with 5 or less (3 or less if damaged) units, losing combat and retreating to the other side of the stronghold if there was an empty hex, and then playing the tactics card to rally up to 4 units to get a force deeper into enemy territory.

Granted, this is still possible with the rules as is, its just a little more difficult as you would have to make sure you controlled no adjacent hexes

.

mateooo said:

I believe this maneauver was first catalogued in SC: tBG and is commonly known as the Weasly Retrograde . =)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/255702/the-weasely-retrograde-tm

Personally, I think if you've planned so poorly that your only route of escape is a "full" area, you deserve to lose units.

Thanks for the answers! I've added #1 to my working document already (as I asked that question also), but I'll add the others.

With #3, I'm not quite sure when that will ever happen, though, as the Start of Battle playing of cards happens after you put units next to the race sheet, and thus there wouldn't be any routed units there to take the damage anyway.

1) you cant always plan when you will get attacked, and if someone forces you to retreat, then it can be devestating.

3) Happened just the other day, when I played the card in an area where my opponent had 8 units, 4 of who were routed to begin with. He played the card on defense and wanted to kill them off, I said probably not, but wasnt sure if this card played out like combat damage.

mateooo said:

You should always plan for potential of being attacked. Leave yourself multiple potential retreat routes if you have to.

Plus, when you are defending, chances of being hugely overstacked after the battle are much less, because many of your units will be destroyed.

I think the ruling is consistent with the rules, and forces long-term planning for where you position your units.

mateooo said:

Again, though, the 4 routed units aren't part of the battle at that point; you play the card during Step 3 of the battle sequence, so only figures participating in the battle can be affected by the card anyway. The routed units aren't part of the battle at that point.

Granted, the ruling is what I'd expect anyway, but I'm just having a hard time seeing a situation where you'd have routed units during the "Start of Battle" step of the sequence.

When an area containing routed units is attacked aren't the routed units destroyed before battle?

JB81 said:

No, they are only destroyed if they would be forced to retreat (which means the defender would have to lose the battle). Otherwise, they are left in on the board while the non-routed units are placed next to faction sheets to participate in the battle.

JB81 said:

No. See page 21, step 2, 2nd paragraph:

Heroes and routed units are not placed to the right of a player's faction sheet and, instead, remain in the contested area. These figures may not participate in the battle, and these routed units are destroyed if forced to retreat.

You have to wait until the resolution of the battle. If the army that had previously routed units loses, those units are destroyed at this step of the battle.

mateooo: With regards to #2, is the Tactics card you are referring to the "Spread Dissent" one? I just want to make sure; it seems the main question is "if the Neutral is allied to a player, can it retreat to a player-controlled area?" In your question, you imply that the card says it can only retreat to empty or uncontrolled areas. The card itself doesn't say that. However, that is the rule for neutrals retreating, and that's what I'm assuming Corey is answering.

However, to avoid putting words in Corey's mouth in this particular case, I've posed the question again, in a slightly different way. I reference the Spread Dissent card, but basically ask: "If the Neutral is allied with a player, can it retreat to a player-controlled area, or is it treated like a "true neutral", and can only go to empty or uncontrolled areas?"

I'm pretty sure his answer will be the same - IE, they are treated as "true neutrals", even if they were allied. But I want to make sure I am not over-extending the interpretation of the answer, too.

Actually, that's true. He definitely (probably unintentionally) phrased the question very strangely. Corey's answer can probably be taken to apply to Spread Dissent, since I'm sure he knows there are no such cards that specify the neutrals must retreat to empty/uncontrolled areas, but it would be nice to get some confirmation.

You're both wrong. I purposely tried to trick Corey, catch him in a paradox, and destroy the space time continuum...

I must have mistaken the text of the rulebook for the text of the card... either way, the Rulebook says how neutrals can retreat, so I would guess the ruling is correct... though kind of unintuitive. Let us know what Corey says in response to your question.

Certainly will I don't think the answer will be any different, as it's really the same question just worded a little differently. I just think it needed to be worded slightly differently enough to make sure that Corey was really answering what we think he was

Has a definite answer to this Spread Dissent question been received yet? I cannot seem to find Sigmazero's compiled list of answers at the moment (it's not in his sig. Was it before? I think it was).

Yesterday, my opponent attacked my stronghold with a large force, consisting largely of neutrals. I opted for a Tactical Retreat and was content to see his forces standing there the rest of the year (it was spring when he attacked) initially, but later on in the year I received the Spread Dissent card. Now this stronghold was surrounded by hexes belonging to either me or my opponent, so from what I read in this thread, the neutrals would be destroyed. At the time, we took it to mean "They are allied, so he gets to choose to where they retreat".

Regardless: It would have been a much nicer card to play if the units had been destroyed out of hand, but as it is they ended up routed from retreating in a hex with 1 other unit and I destroyed them by attacking the next season anyway. Still, it would be nice to know for the future

Another question concerning retreating came up in may last game-session:

Imagine the elven sorceress triggers her "word of Vaal" special ability and forces an enemy unit to immediately retreat from battle. At the end of the battle, the elven army wins and forces the rest of the opponent's army to retreat. Do these units have to retreat into the same area as it was chosen for the victim of the "word of Vaal"? Is this retreat at the end of the battle considered to be "the same" retreat than in the middle of the battle?

Graf said:

I think the answer is "no, they don't have to retreat to the same area." The sorceress's ability is a special effect that circumvents normal rules.

However, the normal rules DO say that you must retreat to friendly hexes if able (you can only go to an empty hex if there are no friendly hexes.) That means the only time you'd have a choice is if there was another friendly hex besides the one the other unit retreated to.

Zabulus said:

Yes, there has been an answer. Basically, if they are allied to a player, the player chooses where they retreat to (which could include to another friendly area). If they are unallied, then the player to your left would retreat them (as he controls unallied neutrals). The only way allied neutrals would retreat and become unallied is if the area they are in has no adjacent friendly areas; then they would have to retreat to an uncontrolled area or die.

Graf said:

As Steve-O said, the Word of Vaal retreat doesn't have to be the same area that the end-of-battle retreats go to. In fact, since you resolve each Word of Vaal separately (ie, you resolve orbs one at a time), each individual Word of Vaal could retreat units to different areas (assuming there are multiple areas you could retreat them to).

The end-of-battle retreat must all be to the same area, but it is only the same area relative to itself, regardless of anything that happened during the battle.

(Also, the elven Defensive Wards development works much like the Sorceress abiliy, too; it's resolved individually, before checking strength. The area that single unit retreats to doesn't have to be the same area as the bulk of the retreating units, as the latter is a separate "retreat")