I also thought p.21 was refering to the attacker having the option of enfourcing the Flag result or not when I first read it. When I went back through it though it really looks like it is stating that if the unit isn't destroyed then he should decide, by checking to see if there are Flag results, whether or not the unit is pushed back. The section on Flag results clearly states the the defender must fall back.

But for the sake of argument lets say that someone from FFG says it is up to the attacker to decide, if the defender is Stalwart it would seem that the attacker would want to push them back anyway to prevent counter attacks.

templar72 said:

If the defender is Stalwart, the attacker had better roll 2+ morale results

echtalion said:

I think that "determine," used here, means "to find out or ascertain something, usually after investigation," rather than "to decide or settle something conclusively" (though both are proper definitions of the word). Since the following sentence uses the unequivocal language "An attack causes the target unit to retreat one hex for each result rolled," rather than "an attack may cause the target unit to retreat one hex for each result rolled," it seems to favor the former definitions.

It might be more be more clear if it were written as "If the target was not eliminated when taking hits, the attacker checks whether his attack causes the target unit to retreat." The wording is uglier, but less prone to confusion. The following sentence makes more sense in this context as a "guide" to checking whether an attack causes a retreat, such as:

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

You'll notice that neither this section, nor the section on page 22 (which is referred to as being on page 21) address the obvious question of whether an attacker who rolls multiple flag results could choose to force a unit to retreat less than the full number of hexes by using only a fraction of the morale results. In fact, in the section on page 22, it reads:

"Units that are forced to retreat must move one hex of their owner’s choice toward their House’s board edge for each morale result rolled aginst them in combat."

Note that there is no mention of the attacker's choice here, though we could assume that "force" refers to the attacker "forcing" the unit by choosing to use the morale result. And yet, in the following example:

"The Lannister unit is forced to retreat after the Stark unit rolls a morale result during an attack."

Here, the "forcing" is connected to the rolling of a morale result, not the choice to use a morale result.

The ambiguity of the word "determine" remains, but judging from the rest of the text, I would say that retreating is compulsory, and that the concerns people have expressed here are legitimate. They have read the rules, and assumed the most probable meaning from unclear language.

Personally, I would certainly like it to be as you've said, but I still don't think it's "obvious" one way or the other.

Eldil said:

Whoever wrote the rules likes the word "Determine" it's used in 32 different rules in BoW.

I read all 32 uses, to see if any of them gave a "choice" to the player. And in all cases the player is just required to calculate an effect.

This is just ridiculous - 3 months of forum posts and I honestly cant believe it hasn't yet been resolved by FFG.

I agree with Eldils excellent summary above.

"determine" = 'calculate according to the rules' ie if you roll a flag, a retreat is forced according to the retreat rules (really page 22)

there is only the slightest whiff of a hopeful interpretation that this means attacker chooses whether to force the retreats of flags they roll, although i wish it did too. Only an official clarification on the various issues raised above will satisfy the many participants of this post and enlighten its hundreds of readers (CUSTOMERS!)

The retreat mechanic is just a fundamental problem in the game.

At the risk of being accused a Troll rather than a justifiably frustrated customer im going to raise this non response as a forum post of its own. Does anyone know a better way to get an answer? perhaps an email to [email protected] ?

Interesting. This is how it works in Battlelore, Command & Colors: Ancients, Battlecry, and Memoir '44 and you guys say it is broken. Then on another thread someone complains that FFG is not responsive in answering this "problem".

The rules are clear; you've already said them. You just don't like the rules. Fine. You have the answer; make up your own rules.

Troops running away from the first attack and not getting crushed by the second attack is a part of these rules and its heritage. This is nothing new. Your thinking it isn't realistic is based on the assumption that the units that ended up adjacent to the defender actually arrived at the same moment in time; clearly they did not. Nothing goes off perfectly in war. Want something more "realistic"? Try rules that have less abstractions.

Dale

I still await an 'official' response . how unlikely that is, is kinda my point / problem.

Assuming we get no clarifying response, and that all generally agree that flags compulsorily force retreats (with no attackers choice but checking of course for stalwart ), in terms of elegant houserules I agree with michael above. the most elegant solution is to somehow make an actual retreat cause a morale of 1 ( the equivalent of a green unit being eliminated !) no matter how many squares it retreats (?).

I would however argue that you can partially achieve this result if you force retreated units to turn their flags because when you rally them with a flag order token you must "decrease your Morale by one" (pg 12). this simultaneously potentially inflicts some morale penalty for rallying units from retreats if they want to swing back into the fray AND lessens the often stated annoying scenario of watching a defending unit retreat only to turn around and attack you in the same round at no real penalty other than a change in position. And they may simply not be able to move again till the next round at all if they dont have a flag token. So retreats become subtly more significant both in terms of morale and board position without having to factor in more complicated damage scenarios.

So to clarify the retreat house rule could be this;

add a bullet item to the end of the bullet list in page 22 RETREATING as follows;

After resolving all other retreat effects, if the retreating unit has not been eliminated it must turn its flag.

Next time i play we may trial this.

but this doesnt really resolve other related but unresolved retreat issues relating to retreating paths being blocked and whether to remove engagement tokens from units counterattacked and being forced to retreat but being blocked etc. still some more thinking to do with that one.

Hey guys.

The official response is that you must retreat for flags rolled. The attacker does not choose whether a retreat happens, he only determines or evaluates whether it does. It is easier to just put this responsibility on one player although saying attacker rather than players probably contributed to the confusion. However, the retreating example leaves no space for a choice on the attacker's part.

Have fun!

Rob

Well, that's weird. I've only played it once, but it seemed crystal-clear to me after reading the rulebook that when a flag is rolled, the attacker chooses whether or not a unit retreats.

...but now, re-reading the book, I see that that's not the case. "the attacker determines" seemed to me to mean "chooses". That's confusing language!

Thanks for the response.

Thanks for the response, Robb.

Having played Memoir '44, I had assumed that it was an automatic retreat of one hex per flag rolled, confusing wording in the rulebook notwithstanding. Glad I was right in that assumption.

Yes, it´s clear to me that a unit Must retreat, yet, i have play BOW using a House rule that states that the atacker may chosse if the enemy unit retreat or not.

I tink it´s funnyer this way, but hey, the good about this game is that we can make 1000 house rules ou stay strict to the books and the results is always the same...a good time of pleasure

What about the attacker choosing where the retreating unit moves and also choosing if they remain engage if they are able to advance and are asjacent to the retreating unit?

Hello,
I am new to the game but played Mémoire and Battlelore before.

I like the few suggestions for the retreating I have seen so far as retreating is something obligatory.

I particularly like those ones:

- moving down the moral 1 step on the track. Easy and very effective. As the moral track is quite static for me.

- Turning the banner is great also.
Works fine if an unit was not activated in the round. But it still means that this unit could be activated by a command card if entered a ZOC of a leader after a retreat. I would rather like that this unit is routed for the entire round.

- 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

- Units in Cover ignore the first Morale result rolled against their unit in each attack. Like in Mémoire if I remember well?

- 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).

- I had this idea before I think for mémoire: The defender could choose to flee or not but if not it would take one hit per flag rolled on attacker's dice. There are certain cases when I guess keeping a position is important also.

I did my first games today and I interpreted some rules in a wrong way (I guess) but worked. When a unit was engaged and flanked at the same time, would do the result of all the dices before an eventual counter attack. Also I only re-rolled the dices of the flanking attacks (choosing a symbol etc...). Of course if a flag was rolled in the attack no counterattack was possible except if special ability allowing the unit to ignore one flag.

Now of course not sure that whole of those rules works together.
I will need to test all of those and see what works or not.

(sorry for my English)

Are you guys satisfied with the "Enhanced" answer to this thread.

For me, I think directional retreats and withdrawals satisfied my problems with the frequently "helpful retreats" and I believe these are fairly elegant ways to give added tactical control to both attacker and defender.

What's not so obvious to me is the question: "Does an attack need to cause damage to have a Morale result cause the retreat?"

In the passage above from the rulebook, I was inclined to think so, based on the wording: "If the target was not eliminated when taking hits , the attacker determines ... "

In contrast, when the target is not taking hits (ie the attack is not causing hits, or missing), the attacker wouldn't be determining whether the attack is causing the target to retreat.

But from reading the above exchanges, it appears that everyone is presuming the opposite, hence the reactions/opinions/creative alternative mechanics.

How are we concluding that lone Morale results, without accompanying damage, in fact causes the retreats?

Again, I admire the creative ideas, but wouldn't requiring damage with the Morale results to cause retreats help to minimize the undesired effects of too much retreating?