Hello!

Apologies if I'm posting about an already done and dealt with topic, but after (what I thought to be) a fairly thorough search I haven't been able to come up with any explanation as to how the Robb Stark House Card is supposed to work.

The gist of the problem is explained in this topic on BoardGameGeek (scroll down to Robb Stark under House Cards); apparently you can override the rule found on page 21 of the rulebook that states "If the attacker lost the combat, his surviving units must retreat back to the area from which they marched" and make your opponent retreat to any other area. This seems to be at odds with the text on the House Card itself, which says that you must select a legal area where your opponent would lose the fewest units.

My question is this: if you're supposed to select a legal area for your opponent to retreat to, and the "official answer" on BoardGameGeek says you can select an apparently illegal area, which kind of "legal" are we talking about? Does it mean legality regarding the choice of area, the player controlling the area you wish your opponent to retreat to (i.e. could you make him retreat to an area you have a Power Token on?), the type of border (could you make him retreat across a river?) or… what?

I think you are a little hung up on the word "legal".

Robb forces the attacking units to retreat to any area they would be able to retreat to if they were defending units.

kauai1964 said:

Heh, fair enough. I am, and I admit to being overly nitpicky at times; I just wish this detail was mentioned on the card or in the FAQ somewhere, since "legal retreat for attacking units" and "legal retreat for defending units" are 2 different things.

I'm willing to go with what was posted on BGG, don't get me wrong, I think it's a decent enough ruling. I'm just curious about how far FFG intended to allow this particular House Card ability to bend the rules.

Is it "legal" for Robb to do this? Yes, because the card text trumps the rules.

Is it "legal' for Robb to force defending units to retreat to a territory of Stark's choice? Yes, EVEN THOUGH the rules say the DEFENDER chooses.

I'm with Merovil here. Nothing in the rules or FAQ define a legal area for the attacking units as anything other than the area where they started. And technically, if Rob Stark makes them retreat as defending units, then they CAN'T retreat to the area where they marched from, because defending units can never retreat to the area the attacker marched from.

I'm willing to play according to emails posted on BGG and make assumptions about which retreat rules they expect to apply, but I would consider that a house rule.

dypaca said:

In directly reading Robb's card, I agree that I interpret a legal retreat to be where the other player attacked from if I was defending with Robb. Because according to the rules, that is the only legal retreat and the card doesn't specify anything to trump that definition of legal.

In the errata, this is covered, though vaguely. There's a question somewhere on there about using Robb's ability while defending, and the answer is simply "Yes". Again, it doesn't re-define what's legal, it just says yes he can use his ability. I asked FFG directly if "yes" meant that they can force the attacking army to retreat to a location that they did NOT attack from, and they confirmed that Robb's ability can do that even while defending.

I will throw my hat into the ring on this one:

You are all over-analyzing the interpretation of "legal"

Use the "kiss" method (keep it simple stupid). start with the most basic interpretation:

FROM THE FAQ (page 1)

Q: Can the text ability on the “Robb Stark” House
card be resolved if a player wins the combat as the
defender?
A: Yes.

-this directly implies an application of the card instruction outside the usual "retreat to where attacking from" rule. it would not be in the FAQ with a "yes" answer beside it if the defender could not choose the retreat location.

the reference to LEGAL is wether or not you can retreat troops to water or ports, or ships to castles, or to retreat a 3 stack on top of another 3 stack.

This doesn't have much to do with the original topic but does anybody know how to use Robb Stark well? He seems like a really pointless card :/

place 2 march orders close to a contested or embattled area.

hit first objective with overwhelming odds and use the robb stark card. retreat the units to range of the second march order.

march on the routed units with a lone footman.

kill all the routed units.

there is very few ways to destroy units in the game. historically cards with only 2 swords or more are capable of killing a unit.

and since mustering is so rare in this game, removing a unit off board has strategic implications that are virtually incalculable.

Brilliant strategy. The retreated units still count as being in combat (playing a card etc) but provide no combat strength, am I right?

Prince Capsicum said:

Yes, the routed units still trigger a combat, so they can get support and play a house card and use the Valyrian blade. However they have no combat strength themselves, and if they lose the battle they are destroyed (they cannot retreat again).

typically it happens only in moat calin or seagard in the west. where robb retreats the forces to the twins and then hits them with a marching army using the shimmering sea to convoy and support the attack.

in the east there are more options, but mostly against crackclaw with a siege. then retreating the forces to the mountains of the moon or if it is baratheon, using his fleets agains him to drop the weakened forces next to a hostile martel/tyrell player's march order..

This will definitly make things more interesting.

kauai1964 said:

Although I am a new player (6 games so far), I am going to give my humble opinion…

I totally agree with you. If the ability of Robb Stark does not override "normal game rules", it would be a meaningless card/ability…

Usually when combat is initiated, the attacker has the assurance of being able to retreat to where he came from (probably supported area). When using the Robb Stark however, he can suffer a penalty of being sent next to an opponent's march order and therefore, loose his routed units to an easy fight…

In my opinion, the errata is lame.

The single word "Yes" doesn't help much but brings more implications. If we stick to the original rule, Robb's ability is just useless while defending according to the card's text. I'm ok with that, at least it's clear.

I know it will be more powerful if the ability can be used by a defender, but wouldn't it be better describing it specifically on the card rather than leaving it open to interpretation especially when it overrides the core rule in a significant and controversial way.

All in all, I think adding a new feature afterward, in errata, vaguely, is not that good :/