1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Delete Retreat!

Discussion in 'ITS' started by Hecaton, Oct 17, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    So for a long time the Retreat! rules for ITS specifically have confounded me - they seem tailor-made to punish players for doing too well, or to randomly hand the game to one player or the other if things have gotten bloody all around. Last night I was playing a game of Armory (my USAriadna vs. opponent's TAK) where I had gone second. After a couple of bloody rounds, at the bottom of round 2, my opponent was down to 3 troopers - two Veteran Kazaks and Voronin. I went to use my last order to engage one of the Vet Kazaks with a Blackjack - and then realized that if I did so I would lose, since my opponent would secure the Armory and I would not get a 3rd turn. So this is different than the rules for Retreat! in the core rulebook, which *would* have allowed me to win the game even after attacking my opponent's troops.

    So I got a couple questions (@HellLois or whoever):

    1. What is the purpose of the modified Retreat! rules for many of the ITS scenarios? In missions such as Armory, being punished for killing an opponent's troops that are near (or inside!) the objective sounds counter-intuitive. What are the benefits of this compared to the Retreat! rules in the rulebook?
    2. Are we supposed to keep a running tally of our opponent's surviving points, so that we know if we're going into retreat or not? The only reason I knew what I was doing was because I had discussed building the list my opponent used with him prior to the game - if I hadn't, this might have happened by accident. Are we supposed to have knowledge of what specific kills might put the opponent into retreat, or is it supposed to be fuzzy?

    EDIT/ADDENDUM: Are the consequences of being able to field an army which starts the game in retreat, scoring some points, and then ending the game before your opponent can take a turn, intended? I'd assume not, but you never know.
     
    #1 Hecaton, Oct 17, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2018
    Karmano and TaHu like this.
  2. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Because missions with an objective need to be about more than just murdering your opponent?
     
    Balseraph, Bobman, Ben Kenobi and 2 others like this.
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    Thet already are. That's a strawman. The situation I described involved killing enemy troopers who were in or near a scoring zone - something that should be rewarded in a mission like that.
     
    meikyoushisui and Karmano like this.
  4. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    But you killed the rest of the army to get to that point. The rest of their army wasn't in or near the scoring zone - ergo, you weren't able to prioritise targets or get your own troops in to dominate the zone prior to pushing them to that threshold.
     
    Ben Kenobi and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  5. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    393
    To answer a specific part of your question, model that are completely killed are full public information, including costs. So asking how many points killed (not unconscious mind you) is actually legal and so can get an estimate of how close they are to retreat.

    As for retreat, it is to do as the 2nd poster stated, it is to force the player to pay more attention to the scenario than just killing indiscriminately. If he managed to put 225+ points in such a way to all be scenario relevant then you had 1 thing to do. Kill 224 points on first two turns and then kill the last 75+ points at the top of your third turn and finish your active turn doing all the ITS things as he has literally no one to stop you.

    But it is extremely unlikely that there were that many points that were scenario relevant and instead you had bloodlust when a safer approach could have been to wait and kill slightly less things in preparation for your next turn. Move more models closer, put cc competant people in btb with enemy models but don't actually attack them (such as smoke at them and just walk at them). Not killing is weird but when they are that low, retreat gives them the ability to play to the objective when you were more occupied with death.
     
    Superfluid and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  6. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    2,164
    1. Its to focus missions on the mission rather than trying to table your opponent and then spending a full turn just doing objectives.
    I think its also part of the lore background that when two covert units are both possibly going to achieve an objective, its anyones game. If you wipe one force they just call O-12 down on you.

    2. You're intended to have a general idea of what the opponent has remaining. Not an exact tally.

    Addendum: I don't think its a way to consistently win games such that its an issue.
     
    Ben Kenobi and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  7. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Or the last man on the opposing side signals the air strike that annihilates the objective rather than letting it fall into enemy hands.
     
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    Some of their troops *were* in the scoring zone. It doesn't matter, though - should I be pointedly letting my army get shot up?
     
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    Put frankly, you're wrong. The rules in the core book do not cause these problems - it's an invention of ITS, and the justification you're giving it is a post hoc one. Retreat can screw the player who's lost a lot of their models, too, if their specialists don't have Valor or whatever. To state another thing frankly, if someone fails to defend themselves to that degree, they deserve to be at a disadvantage.
     
    meikyoushisui and Karmano like this.
  10. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    It's definitely not part of the "lore background" considering the core Retreat rules don't work that way, only in ITS. If it encourages "focus on missions" it encourages noninteractive play i.e. smoke up to objectives and interact solely with consoles etc.

    Having an unknown chance of just losing the game is bad game design, unequivocally.

    I think it's more that social convention prevents it. Which is a bad thing to rely on. Plus, it blows the fluff justification wide open: "Sir! Sir! There aren't enough of them here to defend the objective! WE HAVE TO RETREAT!"
     
  11. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Needing to kill 225pts of your opponent's army so you don't "get shot up" sounds like a gross exaggeration. Especially when the surviving pieces include 2 Vet Kazaks.
     
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    He brought 5 Vet Kazaks to the field, and a Ratnik.
     
  13. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    In any case - these are the rules for tournament play. That tournament play is based around adherence to the mission and bringing the tools to complete it. Without Retreat! functioning as it does, the game would skew heavily toward the player able to bring the strongest attack pieces. Evidently, CB don't want that to be the sole focus of the game or to be rewarded under all mission types.

    Edit - Also consider that not every mission has the same Retreat! clauses in it. Further signifying it is targeted at specific missions to force more dynamic play than "I done killed all your doods dead".
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4,672
    I'll wait for @HellLois to give an actual answer, if he does, rather than your flailing about for a post-hoc justification.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  15. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    2,164
    "lore background". Have you read Paradiso?

    All you doing here is trying to press opinion as some kind of objective fact.

    It doesn't encourage noninteractive play, thats hyperbole.

    Its hardly unknown, or a chance. Its a variable you can control. More so than rolling dice. So please, spare us your Unequivocal opinion.

    Again, read paradiso.
     
  16. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,893
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Not to mention that the core Retreat! rules specifically state that if a scenario provides specific rules and conditions for Retreat!, those are the rules used. And here the rules reward playing the mission, rather than simply killing.
     
  17. Gunmage

    Gunmage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    254
    For example, bringing a list that starts in retreat in order to swipe a point and score a win? That's playing to the mission alright.
    Not that I agree with Hecaton on the whole, but the whole "the game ends at the end of that turn" clause gives one an ability to play giveaway with own units in order to deny the opponent his turn - while giving a whole turn to the retreating player to do his own stuff. In the core rules that turn had to be spent actually getting the pieces to the table border, so you needed to:
    1) Start a turn in retreat,
    2) Be ahead in the score already,
    3) Be able to get all pieces off the table in 1 turn.
    That is a feat deserving of a reward. But getting 3/4th of your own army killed turn one to spend the second one doing objectives? I don't think so. Maybe Retreat as immediate game ending condition is needed, but the way it is implemented right now, it has some glaring loopholes.

    P.S. By the way, where does it say that all info on Dead troops is open? There's nothing on this case in the Dead state rules, and "Public and Private Information" states that costs of your troops are Private with the very first bullet.
     
  18. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1,277
    How does this “starts in retreat” mechanic work?

    Third paragraph of retreat:
    “In game terms, each player must, at the beginning of their Active Turn, during the Tactical Phase, make a count of their surviving troops. For this purpose, consider any troops that have not yet been placed on the table (Airborne Deployment, Hidden Deployment...) as survivors. If the sum of the survivors' Cost in points is equal to or less than 25% of the points available for building the Army List, then that army enters a state of Retreat!.”

    Note how undeployed troopers are still survivors, so don’t cause retreat. ITS doesn’t change that.

    ITS does have a statement killing undeployed troopers. But in order for a trooper that hasn’t been deployed yet to be considered killed, by the statement
    “Troopers that have not been deployed on the game table at the end of the game will be considered to be Killed by the adversary.”
    you have to find a way of ending the game while those underplayed troopers haven’t been considered killed yet.
     
  19. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    This conversation is going on in the Rules forum as part of a Baggage discussion. The Retreat threshold is determined by the total points available for the army - there is seemingly nothing stopping you fielding a force that has only 74pts worth of troops in it at the start of the game - thereby starting in retreat.
     
  20. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    No, it isn't.

    This would require you to be able to use said 74pts to achieve the mission. Rely heavily upon you going first. And still likely end the tourney with you sitting middle to bottom... Because any standard 300pt force designed for the mission, and that goes first, is going to nail the mission objectives vs you paltry assortment of troops, and because Tourney Points are a thing. Furthermore, post round 1 - word will have spread regarding such a player's poor form and sportsmanship and there would be no surprise factor leading into subsequent games. I would probably also expect such a player to be asked to leave by a TO for such a display of poor sportsmanship.

    There is following the intention of the rules, and there is being a dick. This is clearly in the "being a dick" category.
     
    Papa Bey and A Mão Esquerda like this.