Yeah, no. If you build a list with no ability to defend itself you deserve to lose. There's no list that can just run roughshod over the enemy like that without the blessings of the dice gods or the defending player being very inexperienced. There are missions, like Transmission Matrix, that allow for Retreat but do not end the game at the end of a turn where a player starts in Retreat. Given that, the game *doesn't* fall apart if the Retreat rules aren't used. I pretty much only see them causing dumb situations where someone steals a win they shouldn't have or there's some weird situation involving potential cheating. Fundamentally what prevents the situation you're saying is a problem is the three turn limit. This means that you can't methodically destroy your opponent's army while exposing none of yours, you have to make aggressive moves to stand a chance.
Here's the thing; no you don't. The only way to overrun an opponent is if that opponent either allows it or isn't playing well. Against the Avatar list, your opponent should be aware of the possibility of the Speculo, even expecting it, and allowing the CA to go first you would likely also force them to deploy first, setting up decoys or keeping important pieces in reserve to force the Speculo out of position is an important part of the equation. I mean, this whole argument is also dependent on one of the game's most criminally under-priced skills, so I don't see how this is much of an issue with Retreat! at all. Not to mention that it is very, very, difficult to put most lists into Retreat! in the few orders you'll have available in one turn. In nearly all games I've played or heard of where Retreat! has been an issue, it has been in close-fought games where one side has been bleeding orders in order to kill off their opponent such that actually pushing the buttons has been an issue in and of itself. Except for one specific game where a Haqq force was put into Retreat! by an Achilles fanclub. This was one of few ITS missions where neither No Quarters nor the special Retreat! End Game was in effect. As I recall it, the Haqq forces through the glory of Allah (a.k.a. Religious Special Rule) managed to reduce the victory in spite of this defeat by pushing a button that Achilles could only stare at through his perfect eyelashes. Other games where Retreat! has been an issue has been in games with No Quarters rule.
It's kind of a fuzzy point in the rules, but something else I'd change if it wasn't already would be to make it so deployable weapons and scenery structures could be targeted. It'd make Sat-Lock to clear minefields more appealing as well as feel more intuitive imo.
Didn't see it till now. Please don't tell other people, what I think. Discuss on an proffesional level without attacking other people, whats in my oppinion is common courtesy
Another thing to consider is that a savvy player might see that they are up on Victory Points, and then deliberately suicide march their forces out into the open towards you in order to bring themselves into retreat. This becomes a catch 22 of, do you let them run roughshod over your own forces, or do you ARO and potentially drop said opponent into retreat?
If he does this, you have one complete turn to score points. It's not that you immediately loose the game. These game mechanic has it's drawback, no doubt, but the benefit is worth more.
It is what you think. You think actually attacking enemy pieces is stupid/bad and that focusing exclusively on the mission objective without regard for your opponent is smart/good/"tactics". You just don't want to be called out on it.
I don't think you understand what he was saying. The point would be, during one player's turn, he realizes he's up on points and near retreat, and puts a bunch of pieces in aggressive positions where you have to kill them to reach an objective. If you kill said pieces, said player is put into retreat and thus has a turn to score some points and then bounce. I've seen it happen, where you want to score points but can't because killing the enemies in the way would put them in retreat.
In that case, could you please refrain from telling others that they think like 40K players or should play that game instead? You should not invite others to have a professional conversation if you are not ready to do so yourself.
You're oversimplifying the interactions. There are still a finite number of orders that a list can put out, and your list needs to have appropriate specialists to achieve the objective. Tabling your opponent isn't an "auto-win" if Retreat is removed - you still need to get people to the buttons and successfully press them. If all I've done is Rambo with attack pieces for Turn 1 and 2, and saved only turn 3 for pressing buttons/achieving objectives, I will probably fail on all but the simplest objective missions as most objectives live in the centre of the board and require orders to push your dudes to the location and more orders to successfully press them.
I've insert the post, I'm suggesting you are meaning. Yes, if you will, you can read it this way, for what I'm sorry. I'm verry direct, what lies in my German nature, but I try always to be polite. Perhaps culture and my language barrier doesn't transphere it correctly, for which I have to apologize by you. You are totally right
No, I'dont. I think only attacking is in Infinity a bad idea. Spend 4 orders going after your mission’s Objectives Spend 3 orders attacking the enemy Spend 2 orders repositioning your forces for subsequent turns Spend 1 order wherever you want These list from magonus seems to be a valid approach for me
Man, you guys really need to play the Paradiso missions... which include the statement "game ends as soon as either player goes into retreat."
Definitely on on the deployables and certainly on the scenery structures which are mission objectives, those antennas or whatever they are in missions. I can see a possible problem with targeting regular scenery that's bigger than an objective. For example, say you wanted to put an annoying wall into Targeted state and then fire smart missiles at it to blow a hole in it... a wall is a long terrain feature. So I could see a scenario where the Forward Observer looks at the near corner of it and puts it into Targeted, then the SML bot plops down a template on the far end of the 8" long scenery feature and clips some enemy camo markers - all in all, a situation I'd never want to come up. Because of the potential complications arising from that (and targeting buildings would be worse for it), I'd want to limit that Targeted state to a small, contained area like a single deployable or objective.
Yes, I much prefer the missions where there is an objective-based victory condition as opposed to killing Army Points. That said, I dislike the Retreat! rule which prematurely ends your opportunity to finish your mission, I find it counter-intuitive. At the moment I favour simply not using the Retreat! rule at all in any game, but perhaps some other method of discouraging tabling your opponent could be suggested, though. How about Reinforcements! Instead of your troopers running away, they get on the radio and bring in extra support... seems like a lot of complication though. I still think the best way of discouraging your opponent from wiping out your forces is by making it very difficult for them!
No one should ever be forced to play Paradiso and if you bring it up again by God I will beat you with my shoe.
Not sure if I like Retreat mechanics. Operating under the assumption they are intended to protect the player who is taking a beating, they really don't if you know what you're doing. I've been building lists that prefer to alphastrike since forever. In missions that theoretically reward going 2nd through scoring Points/Zones you get an easy win if you put your opponent into Retreat to effectively deny him contesting you in his last turn. There probably is no easy fix, but I'm currently abusing the heck out of that mechanic.
