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.