From Page 22: “A unit must always retreat into one of the two adjacent hexes towards its owner’s board edge. A player’s side is indicated in the battle plan.”

Consider this situation: I send a cavalry unit around a line of enemy infantry, and attack from behind (so the target is closer to my side of the board than my attacker). The units are now positioned as such that the “two adjacent hexes towards its owner’s board edge” are both occupied by enemy infantry, but the hexes “behind” the cavalry (that is, the hexes opposite the enemy infantry) are open. The enemy infantry attacks, and rolls a morale flag.

According to the rules, my cavalry would have to retreat into the direction of the attack, or slightly to the side of it (since the “two adjacent hexes towards its owner’s board edge” are occupied by the attacker and another enemy ally). And since I couldn’t do that, the morale flags would convert to hits, since I couldn’t retreat. Although the hexes I would intuitively retreat into are open.

Am I reading this rule right? If so, it seems counterintuitive and somewhat arbitrary.

Thanks.

I agree that it does seem strange that units can only retreat to the 2 hexes towards its baseline. Common sense would dictate a unit just wants to get away from the attacking unit. However, the rules are clear and it is just another aspect you have to consider when ordering units. Getting 'behind' enemy units to block off retreat routes is fine, but it could block off yours! Don't forget that the strongest attacking advantage of cavalry is its pursue. If an enemy unit survives, the cavalry can't pursue. I have also learnt - the hard way - that attacking 'Stalwart' units with cavalry is dangerous. 'Stalwart' cancels 1 Flag. The tactical aspect of exactly where to move units really needs a lot of thoughts. The difference between destroying/retreating an enemy unit and just leaving a single figure is very great indeed. Cheers!

Rashley said:

I've also learned that lesson the hard way. An infantry triangle can be a really nasty obstacle for cavalry.

But I'm still bothered by this retreat rule. Especially in a scenario when you're dealing with a small, mobile force, doesn't the concept of "the owner's edge of the board" become arbitrary?

Engage the units from the front with infantry and THEN go around back with cavalry. Then, if they want to turn to attack your cavalry, they have to take a Parting Blow.

badalchemist said:

That is a good strategy, but my main problem was what I thought of as an unthematic mechanic: units taking hits because they can't retreat, even though there is ample space behind them into which to move.

But on relfection, since unit strength isn't just a matter of casulties but cohesion, I guess it makes sense to say that a unit without any clear line of ulimate retreat into their own territory is more likely to buckle and scatter.

I agree with you eldil, doesn't make too much sense that you cant retreat away from an encircled unit and thus you take losses. this is compounded by the fact that you dont actually retreat any hexes after taking loses / getting a retreat flag! are you still engaged? do you have to move that unit with an order then take a parting blow?

It really does make the encircling maneuver a very high risk scenario.

Your cavalry would take hits, the same problem existed in Battlelore but the developers said that it was meant to be like that. Its an extra danger for troops that you send around the back to take enemy units from behind and ths a balancething since its so powerful to do it.

The rules also dont seem to indicate that you should remove the engaged token when forced to retreat by a counterattack but are unable to move because you are 'behind the lines'. My reading is that to move away you in this case would also need to take a parting blow after placing your move order.

Pg 22.

"Removing Engagements

If the target of an attack retreats or is eliminated, any engagement token is removed."

On page 21 Counterattack is distinguished as a different term than Attack in may ways although bullet point 5 makes it functionally the same during resolution.

I'd ask for a Rob ruling on whether Removing Engagements (P 22) should read;

" Removing Engagements

If the target of an attack or counterattack retreats or is eliminated, any engagement token is removed."

This would mean that behind the lines units forced to retreat by a counterattack would clearly become disengaged (yet still adjacent!).

Marduk said:

I think the question is whether the unit actually retreats. From the example on page 22:

The retreating unit to the right cannot
retreat since one hex is blocked by
a unit and the other is blocked by a
river. Because of this, the unit must
take one hit for each hex it cannot
retreat (one in this case).

It seems pretty clear that "retreating" is not the state of resolving morale results, but of literally moving to an adjacent hex. If you can't move to a legal adjacent hex, you can't retreathence, the engagement token remains. This makes a lot of sense if you've pushed a unit against a river, but it makes it extra brutal if the target unit has swung around to attack from the rear, and it's only legal retreat hex is occupied by the attacking unit. All morale results become hits, and the engagment token is not removed. I think this is correct.

Eldil said:

yes your justifying examples above all make absolute sense when the unit is physically blocked in somehow (as per the neat rulebook example) but as you first intuitively felt, I'd still argue it doesnt play out logically when the unit could retreat away, just not towards its own border, so it sits there, still engaged and taking flags as hits. "hmmm lads, plenty of room behind us but that's away from our border so lets just stay right here and get cut to pieces!". you are right that it makes it extra brutal for sure but it is not at all logical or in the spirit of how cavalry operate in battle.

have you tried Whispering wood yet? the layout there makes this combo of rules insane! you are not making a choice of a risky 'behind the lines attack' with high risk consequences (as per Rashleys comment above) , here all the lannisters and half the starks start off pretty much behind each others lines! when lannisters attack the rearward stark forces of maege and the greatjohn (who are between the Lann forces and the red border) or vice versa, while formed up in battle array lines both sides typically cannot retreat towards their own border and thus take morale flags as hits pretty much as standard ! i find it hard to believe this scenario was designed with that situation intended and I'd love a ruling from Rob about the retreat to border or dont move rule and the counterattack engagement token removal issue.

all 4 of us last night universally and quickly agreed it was a bad / joyless rule combo generally and specially in the WW scenario. we played a house rule that you had to retreat towards your border if you could, otherwise away from the attacking unit that forced the retreat. we were all very happy with how that played out.

letting a compass determine hits and battle outcomes is just silly surely?

Yes, agree. Retreat rules can be mayhem and sometimes great. I'm just going to take them on board as they are and include in strategic decisions.

Regarding the "infantry triangle" comment.

Note that Valor rolls from infantry cannot hit a Cavalry unit.