Hey all. We've played a few games of BoW now and are having some fun with it. I think the game needs a few things, but hopefully we'll see some new mechanics in upcoming expansions. However, there is one particular rule that we are having problems with and I was wondering if others were experiencing the same. The problem we're having is the routing/fleeing mechanic. We have one minor problem and two main problems with this mechanic.

The first (minor) problem has to do with Advance. Currently when someone with Advance causes an opponent to flee they may move into the hex the opponent left. This often creates situations where the attacking unit forces a unit to flee, Advances, and ends up still adjacent to the target of their attack. However, forcing someone to retreat removes the Engagement token so that the two units are no longer engaged, even if they are still adjacent after the Advance. That seems silly to me. A unit that remains adjacent to the target of it's attack after an Advance should remain engaged with that unit. It's a minor thing, but it creates situations where it is advantageous to the unit being forced to flee, which seems strange.

The two main problems we have with it are that fleeing happens a bit too often (seems like stuff is fleeing quite often), and that roughly 40-50% of the time fleeing is actually advantageous to the person being forced to flee (and not just in relation to Advances as I was talking about above). For example, something that has happened several times in our games is this: one player Orders two or more units, and moves them such that one unit will engage an enemy and one or more allies will be in a position to Flank the same enemy. What happens far to often in my opinion is that the initial attack (the one creating the engagement) will do no damage (or maybe only one casualty) but roll a Morale result forcing the opponent to Flee. However, after the opponent flees they are no longer in a position to be attacked by the flanking unit(s) which is advantageous to the player being forced to flee and a disadvantage to the person forcing the route. Several times we've heard a player say something like "Sweet! Thankfully you forced me to flee, otherwise I'd have gotten my a** kicked!", or "whew! That was lucky for me!". It should not be advantageous to you to be forced to flee, at least not as often as it seems to occur (at least once per game, if not a couple times per game). This is advantageous to the Fleeing unit because it breaks the Engagement, removes the threat of the Flank attack, and basically wastes the action of an enemy unit (the unit that was going to flank) if they now have no other unit to attack.

Now there are a few ways to try and mitigate this problem, such as positioning your units so that the enemy has no hex to retreat to, or positioning at least one of your units so that they have an alternative target to attack if you force the primary unit to Flee. However, these tactics are not always available, and does not address the problem directly (namely that it should not be advantageous to be forced to Flee, at least not this often).

There are a few houserules that I've been considering to address this problem and I'm hoping that it will be addressed officially at some point in the future. Here are some things I was considering:

1. The attacker may reroll any Morale results on it's attack if it causes no damage with other dice or effects.

2. The attacker may ignore Morale results it rolls if it causes no damage (treating the Morale as a blank result in this case)

3. A fleeing unit is forced to turn it's banner if it has not been turned yet (effectively removing it from use this turn unless it's controller Rallies it).

4. A unit that is forced to Flee but sustains no damage in the attack sustains one hit when they Flee.

Also to address the issue we have with Fleeing occurring so often in general, I have a few ideas for solutions:

1. Leaders may discard a Morale token from your Order Pool to negate one Morale result rolled by an enemy against a unit under their Command.

2. Leaders may ignore the first Morale result rolled against their unit in each attack (leaders should flee less because they're, you know, leaders)

3. Units in Cover ignore the first Morale result rolled against their unit in each attack (units in buildings should be harder to dislodge, and they really aren't).

4. A unit may ignore the first Morale result rolled against them in each combat if attacked by a lower Ranked unit (i.e. it would be harder for a Green Rank unit to force a Blue Rank unit to flee, which makes sense).

What does everyone else think? Has Fleeing been a problem in your games like it has in ours? If it has been a problem for you, what do you think of my solutions? Also, if you have some of your own, pleas post them. Thanks.

Koz

The fleeing concept makes some common sense to me, especially if surrounded by another flanking enemy unit. If I were on a battlefield and saw myself being surrounded and the fight not going so well, I would flee. I would flee, dig in, and regroup my men to possibly attack again or defend my ground. In a war units try to avoid being flanked at all cost and sometimes retreat to prevent it.

However, that said, I do not as well understand why a retreating unit does not receive a parting blow from the unit it is engaged to. If my unit were intermingled with an enemy unit, and I decide to retreat, casualties for me should theoretically result. If this were the case, then it would give the attacking unit a second chance to hit the retreating unit, making retreating not so much a reprieve for the defender.

I can see that advancing units do not become engaged again immediately. As I stated in the first paragraph, a retreating unit could leave the battle and dig in for defence and not immediately intermingle with the oncoming forces. The oncoming forces with advance are generally slow and need to be regrouped before they can properly advance to an advantageous position. However, with the pursue ability, the advancing units are quicker and do have the ability to attack upon following a retreating enemy (the enemy doesn't have the time to dig in).

As far as retreating from a building or forest or hill, I don't really have an opinion. I can use my imagination that is about it . Perhaps an attacking enemy entered in a back door and started causing havoc inside to scare the people inside! . I also suppose differences in rank could have similar imagination attached to it. The green troops are faster and can out maneuver the slower blue or red troops. Ie: From the books, Bronn and his fighting method.

I think you both have good suggestions. Either force the fleeing unit to receiving a Parting Blow if engaged, or have them turn their flag if they haven't been used yet this turn.

i agree i hated when we played if i had someone engaged and rolled no hits but they had to flee breaking the engagement with no cost to them. i think its house rule time, maybe if they flee with no hits you get to reroll the morals that dropped at a chance to hit them? i don't know just a thought

"There are a few houserules that I've been considering to address this problem and I'm hoping that it will be addressed officially at some point in the future. Here are some things I was considering:

1. The attacker may reroll any Morale results on it's attack if it causes no damage with other dice or effects.

2. The attacker may ignore Morale results it rolls if it causes no damage (treating the Morale as a blank result in this case)

3. A fleeing unit is forced to turn it's banner if it has not been turned yet (effectively removing it from use this turn unless it's controller Rallies it).

4. A unit that is forced to Flee but sustains no damage in the attack sustains one hit when they Flee."

Nice suggestions re some house rules. the flee mechanic bugs me here and also bugged me in Battlelore too. Im tired of opponents rejoicing when they flee.

here's my feedback;

1. not too sure about this one on the basis that its a fundamental mechanic change across the board - but it could work well, be interested in your playtest feedback.

2. possibly better than 1, if more boring - but it does allow the flankers to get a shot in.

3. I thought the same thing in our game last night - I strongly agree with this as a good solution removing one of the advantages of fleeing as theoretically the unit should be in some disarray after fleeing. a no brainer for sure.

4. not too sure about this as its a blanket rule - but again it warrants play testing

I also like the idea of higher ranked units ignoring the first flee symbol caused by lower ranked unit - although again that would need some testing to be sure. It is logical though (unless perhaps the higher ranked units are also flanked - ie outnumbered)

With attackers that are flanking as part of a multi unit move ie what i would consider a simultaneous move through a leadership card, and several of those moved are attacking the same unit, it does seem strange to resolve 1 full set of attacks and counterattacks before the second - or third attacking unit gets its attacks. This can cause odd effects in both directions - ie if the attacked card flees it breaks the flank attack(s) completely. If the counterattack on the first attack causes a retreat on the first attacker it can also cause the second attacker to lose its flank bonus, when realistically both units were attacking the unit at the same time.

A solution to this is having the multi unit attacker resolve all its units attacks before the defenders flee symbols or counterattacks are resolved. Does that sound like its worth a play test? Biggest problem with this is that it increases the chance the defender will get no counterattack at all due to being wiped out or fleeing. so it makes being flanked harsher. Not necessarily a bad thing.

In the case of 2 units engaging another (i.e. flanking) perhaps you might also try totalling ALL hits (from both attacking units) and morale flags before applying the damage/effects.

Oops - ha - someone just suggested that before me. My bad.

Agreeing with me ain't bad at all! - I just took longer to get to that point, but yes that's exactly what i meant.

As the OP mentioned, when 2 or 3 of your units attack via a leadership card in such a way that the flanker is adjacent to / could also attack another unit, the situation isn't so bad - you can simply choose to attack (complete the combat sequence on pg 18) that other unit (maybe not with the flanking bonus of course) if your preferred (flanked) target legs it.

I guess the problem described above is most apparent when multiple units are simultaneously ordered to attack a somewhat isolated unit you are hoping to wipe out. In that case the attacked unit will be praying for a morale / retreat flag in the first roll.

Unfortunately Roy the solution we both raised of resolving all main and flank attack rolls simultaneously per attacked unit creates mechanical problems - as per my second para above. When should you have to choose to concentrate your combined dice from 2 attacking units on one defending unit or allow the flanker the flexibility of attacking another adjacent unit. lots of choice & sequence mechanic issues here...

Someone above suggested that units get to do a parting blow on engaged units retreating from them. This seems logical and applies an existing mechanic, but it would be really savage with cavalry - ie cavalry forcing a retreat would get 3 possible attacks in 1 combat sequence! initial attack + parting blow + pursue attack. That would make green cav have 6, blue 9 and red 12 dice rolls each respectively! I guess the overpowered cavalry factor here is a reason it was rejected in play testing?

So in that sense a single hit to the retreating unit (if it scored no original hits?) seems more balanced, even if its an introduced mechanic. Another option is to allow any flankers to also choose to deal 1 hit to the retreating unit instead of attacking an adjacent valid target, or ummmmmm nothing! That solution might sit nicely in the middle and solve the key issue of simultaneous flankers being denied attacks - but it takes the dice out of the mix. Someone would have to run some hit probabilities against the 3 cav attacks x 3 rank options as per above to see where it sits in terms of balance. ie is 9 blue unit dice rolls better than say 2 auto hits vs green / blue / red ranks?

Perhaps flanking is just meant to be difficult to execute

This does seem like a rather thorny problem - would love to hear the official FAQ response on this one.

hi, i don't had any problem playing fleeing as written but reading this post i thought of a suggestion to add to the previous ones.

i've just played the first three scenarios so far, but it seemed to me that the morale track shifted very little during game play, always gravitating around the central hub (and thus making victorys by routing the opponent extremely unlikely - ...okay, as i understand it should be). but what if whenever a unit had to flee due to flags on a roll from the enemy, the morale of its side dropped one stop?

yeah that would make retreating sting / matter a little more for sure.

Page 21 of rule book:

If the target was not eliminated when taking hits , the attacker
determines whether his attack causes the target unit to retreat. An
attack causes the target unit to retreat one hex for each result
rolled (see “Retreating” on page 21 for more details).

My gaming group has interpreted this as moral dice are ignored if no hits are scored.

This has worked great for us. There has been very little retreat action.

Those flags are using up dice that could have been hits!

I think the part you stated in bold is just telling you not to bother retreating a unit if it's eliminated, which seems a bit silly to have to mention to begin with.

Upgrayedd said:

I think the simplest solution to the "no loss retreat" would be to have a "Flag" result cause an casualty AND force a retreat.

It always seemed a bit odd in Berg games that units took heavy losses but did not fall back while those who don't take any loses do retreat.

TomT

Hey guys, great suggestions.

While reading all suggestions I thought... "what if.. there could be a simpler way..."

1. Retreat can only be forced when attacker is higher strength (not sure exactly how to determine this yet)
2. and/or, forced retreat if the target unit is adjacent to at least 2 of my friendlies, ie. possibility of being flanked.
3. If not forced to retreat, flag is ignored.

This makes more sense and makes it more realistic.

I'd also like to add another thought. The forcing of retreating is not so bad if I'm Lannister in first scenario, as I want the opponent to be forced to flee from the victory objective hexes. But then I'm very upset when I have 6 units there and a simple flag causes me to move. What I did was I made sure I had units blocking my retreat :-/ ... I guess we just find ways to play by the rules .

Cheers : )

But if you're unit is forced to retreat but cannot due to being blocked by friendly units, you take damage for each flag I believe.

While I agree it can be frustrating to only push a unit out of position when no damage was caused I think tampering with it may cause more harm than good. If an attack is planned well retreats can be used to decimate surrounded units as well as push other units out of a position that may give themselves or others "Stalwart". Another advantage is that there is no counter attack. If you begin to allow damage to be caused or parting shots or flags rotated I think it may overstate the intent of a retreat result and make it too desireable of a result.

Hey all,

of all the suggestions offered here i liked this one best:

When you force a unit to flee, its controller loses 1 morale.

Its simple, it's logical and as far as my experience with the game goes (7 games played so far) would help with a mechanic that doesnt influence the game much. I would be very wary with the other rules and would fear they could make more problems than they solve (parting blow etc.)

Just my 2 cents

So I may be the only one who didn't realize this, but I'll point it out as it makes a huge difference in the game. It took me three times reading the rules and four games until I got it!

When a morale is rolled, the attacker determines whether or not he wants the unit to retreat. We were playing that it was an automatic retreat and this was really terrible so we were house ruling around it. Now that I discovered it's up to the attacker, I don't house rule anything as it's a fine mechanic. Sometimes it's powerful, sometimes it's not, all depends on the situation.

Excerpt from the rulebook, page 21, top of the page:

"Causing Retreats with Morale Results
If the target was not eliminated when taking hits, the attacker
determines whether his attack causes the target unit to retreat. An
attack causes the target unit to retreat one hex for each result
rolled (see “Retreating” on page 21 for more details)."

I think it's obvious that this rule just demolishes all perceived/attributed 'issues' stated previously.

The game is perfectly fine as it is, no need for house rules, but actually read the rulebook!

PS Probably the fellows doing it wrong assumed the retreats worked exactly the same as they do in BattleLore, which is NOT the case.

I think a lot of us had undo the BL mind set...

OD

I think that the rules should be interpreted like this: If the target wasn't eliminated, the attacker checks if his attack causes the target to retreat or not.... etc.

I don't believe there is a choice implicated here. Could be wrong though. English is not my native language. Perhaps Rob could clarify this...

Let's suppose there is an attack, and 2 results of such:

A) The defending unit is eliminated.

B) The defending unit is still in play.

Because the rules state '[...] the attacker determines whether his attack causes the target unit to retreat.'

it's obvious that after any hits are applied, if there is no such unit left, there is no further choice, and thus the above sentence in the rulebook would be superfluous. In summary:

Attacker attacks unit. Possible consequences:

A) Defending unit is decimated. No further actions.

B) After applying hits (if necessary) the defending unit is not destroyed. In this case, it's up to the attacker to decide whether or not the unit retreats.

At least this is how I see it.

Well, on page 22 under "Retreating" it states: "For each <flag> result, the target of the attack must retreat one hex." No hint of a choice here. If you mean that the text on page 21 implicates a choice, isn't it odd that it not mentioned here at all?

Mmm... FFG help us! <says I, retreating to the background>

You are right, there's no allusion to choice whatsoever in that paragraph.

Let's see what other people come up with.