This thread only serves to reinforce the general perception already created. I would again like to state that this whole thread should have been a PM if only HellLois' opinion is a sufficient answer.
And then is HellLois and CB thought it important enough to answer and publicize, a new thread or article.
The rules in the rulebook are purely the mechanical rules. What happens when an army is in retreat. It has nothing to do with missions. Just like terrain rules, or rules about objective rooms. Missions utilise these rules differently to achieve a certain theme. Hence why some missions it doesn't end the game. They are about direct conflict. Try not think of missions with retreat like killing is one of the main objectives.
And the Retreat! rules in the book specifically allow for/contemplate scenario specific conditions added in, to accommodate different optypes of missions.
Furthermore, my understanding is that HellLois has licence to do what he wants in ITS - but is forbidden from changing the Core rule elements. That is why Missions have rules that advance/alter them, and why seasons allow for abilities and rules not present in the Core book. Note- from memory, this was an admission he made during an interview on the White Noise podcast about why things like Fatality on TAGs wasn't being made standard for all play, not just ITS.
Because the idea that killing too many of the opponent's deniable forces or literal enemy combatants would cause a mission failure beggars belief.
Except it's not, because attacking the enemy prevents *them* from accomplishing the mission; it's a competitive game. The idea that you somehow get less time to complete the mission instead of the run of the table if the enemy abandons it again, beggars belief in terms of the fluff context. If they enemy flees the field, there's nothing to stop you from extracting the civilians, pressing the button, or whatever. The Yu Jing Party Van is going to arrive at the end of turn 3; it doesn't magically show up faster
Sorry, did someone forgot they're not playing 40k? That's literally how 40k missions worked when I was playing it over a decade ago. This logic is supported literally no where in the background of the game. So how does it "beggar belief". That's literally what happens in the fluff, the party van turns up earlier, tipped off by the command of the force you just wiped out.
You're reaching. If that logic isn't supported in the background of the game... why is it part of the core rules?
Ok so the core rules tell us the game has to end when one player has no models. Thats pretty mechanical.
And the question is, "Why do some scenarios have the game end when one side is in Retreat!, when other scenarios don't?" I'm not so sure about that. Paradiso missions literally ended as soon as you put someone into Retreat. Shoot someone off the board in First Player's Turn 1 Active Turn, game ends right then and there, second player doesn't even get to go.
And when it's in the ITS rules it's somehow thematic? @paraelix i'd make the argument that attacking the opponent's pieces is usually more "dynamic" than pursuing an objective. At least there's interaction.
Way back in the day I remember when we ran our ITS events using the YAMS rules. We had to have protocols in place for how to handle things if the opponent was tabled. We would have the surviving player try and finish out their turns in as expedited a manner as possible in order to calculate their final score.
The only scenarios with no-quarters are all those where the objective is to actually kill stuff (decapitation, bio-techvore, etc...), so it kinda makes sense i'd say :p
I seem to remember last season Transmission Matrix had no special Retreat! rules so used the core rules. Dunno if that's still the case.
Indeed, it seems i was mistaken! Deadly dance, Frontline, Quadrant control and Transmission matrix are applying the non-ITS retreat rule.
It's based on paradiso which was thematic, yes. The core rules just tell you what to do when one player isn't playing anymore. I just don't understand how its bad that missions alter this?
Given the number of players who simultaneously and separately came up with that as the justification when Paradiso came out and then when ITS started having missions, and regarded it as thematic, it clearly doesn't beggar belief for everyone.
