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

Retreat and End of Game scenario

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Trilker, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. Trilker

    Trilker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    We had a weird situation at the end of our game tonight that we weren't sure how it should be resolved.

    At the start of my opponents third turn (he was going first in the round) he was technically in retreat state, but only had one model left, which was immune to retreat due to Religious, and was his lieutenant.

    Should the game have ended at the end of his active turn? Or should I get my third turn in that situation?

    Technically the rules as written say the game ended because he ended his active turn in Retreat, but his only model was immune to retreat, so was he still in Retreat or not?

    It was tied on zero VP each at the time, so if the game ended, would it be a draw, or would you 'lose' due to falling fully into retreat?

    We genuinely didn't know which way to read the rules on this one.
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    10,369
    Religious only makes that specific model immune to the effects of Retreat, the army will still be in Retreat and as such Loss of Lieutenant.
     
    chromedog and BLOODGOD like this.
  3. Trilker

    Trilker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    So, the game would end at the end of his active turn? Would it be a draw (based on the VP situation at that moment), or do you always lose in that scenario?
     
  4. Ieldin Soecr

    Ieldin Soecr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    257
    The game would have ended, as your opponent was in retreat which is a state that affects the army as a whole. That his last model ignores this state for itself does not remove the state from his army.
    Also he would still be in Loss of Lieutenant, as this is an effect of Retreat on army level, even if his last model was his LT.

    EDIT: Ninjad, and yes the game ends, but the OP and VP are counted normally
     
    chromedog likes this.
  5. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    554
    So, the Religious model might ignore the Retreat! state that your 'army' is in (even though they represent 100% of the models remaining in your army) but fundamentally your army was still in Retreat! at the start of the turn, so the game would be over at the end of turn.

    The model would get to spend their (now Irregular) order as they see fit, ignoring Retreat! but even though they are a living Lieutenant, you're still in Loss of Lieutenant (an effect of having your army in Retreat!) and would not generate a Lieutenant order to spend (I think).

    Assuming you were playing an ITS mission, if the game ends with the score 0-0 and one army in Retreat! it is still a draw as the only relevant factor is the score. You can even win a game if you score more points, go into Retreat! and end the game there.

    Does that help?
     
  6. Trilker

    Trilker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yup, it's that final resolution we were wondering about, and whether it was intentional for there to be scenarios where it is advantageous to fall into retreat or get tabled.

    That sounded like the rules as written, it just felt a little counter-intuitive.
     
  7. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    554
    I gather that Retreat! is used to discourage people from playing purely to murder the enemy army in a horrific Alpha-strike (which can be pretty unfun for the receiving player, if you've ever played games like 40k), so it's used as an artificial brake on excessive bloodlust and to focus players on scoring points during the game rather than tabling their opponent and claiming a 10-0 win by default.

    People have explored exploiting the Retreat! rules to their advantage and it's generally considered very poor form.

    For example, Rules As Written, you could play a scenario with an objective in the mid-field (example: Acquisition), deploy an army that consists of fewer than 75 points (YuJing: Zhanshi Lt, DaoFei AHD). Have your first turn start in Retreat! and use your Command Tokens to have your infiltrating Heavy Infantry (Daofei in this example) jump on top of the Tech-Coffin after deploying within 1" of it and then the game ends in an instant 5-0 Major win for you (if the DaoFei is your Data Tracker).

    However, if you ever do this at a real event I'm pretty sure the police dogs will find pieces of you in six different dumpsters and no witnesses to attest who did it. :)
     
  8. Trilker

    Trilker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is ... evil ... very, very, evil!

    Even if you didn't end up in a dumpster, I'm pretty sure you'll never find anyone willing to play against you ever again :p
     
    chromedog likes this.
  9. Gunmage

    Gunmage General Contact Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    271
    If you were playing an ITS scenario (which you probably were) - yes.

    But I'd also like to note that the rulebook handles the Retreat differently, and the game only ends when the retreating player has no troopers left on the table - so if you have Retreat-immune troopers and don't want to move them off the table, you could play the rest of the game in Retreat. The "Game ends on the turn a player goes into Retreat" is a scenario-specific rule (although one common for all [edit: not all, but still the majority]) scenarios in ITS, and alternatives to ITS (like 20x20) may lack that rule.

    The ITS way arguably makes armies like Morats or Military Orders a bit stronger. Which may or may not be a bad thing.
     
    #9 Gunmage, Dec 4, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    10,369
    Foot note:

    Decapitation, Annihilation, Biotechvore, and Firefight completely lacks Retreat!

    Front Line is the only ITS mission with regular/non-deviant Retreat! rules.
     
  11. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    I keep hoping they actually address this in the ITS rules at some point... like make it so that if you have enough points to fit a unit in your list that isn't already maxed on AVA, it must be added. But for the time being, we have to rely on DBAD.
     
    chromedog and Musterkrux like this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    No. It's not the purview of the community to be hostile to players who are playing by the rules.
     
    Diphoration likes this.
  13. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    496
    This is a very poor list. Not at all optimised, very unimpressed. :upside_down_face:

    The optimal list is Celestial Guard LT, Ninja, Ninja, Warcor.

    Both ninja ignore retreat due to courage. You can convert the CG order and the Warcor order, so you'll have 2 orders on each troopers.

    This is a great way to showcase how both the Ends in Retreat rule is a poor rule and how the scoring system of Show of Force heavily favours the person going last way too much. I don't think anyone ever actually brought that list to a tournament.

    Showcasing absurd extremes like this is a great tool to help see flaws in a design.

    [​IMG]
     
    Arkhos94 and Hecaton like this.
  14. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    496
    This.

    Players should not have to try and define their own scope of what is and what isn't "fair". The rules should be tight enough to give even ground for player to simply focus on playing the game to their full potential.

    This rule is clearly a extreme example, but where do you draw the line of what is and what isn't acceptable otherwise?

    Is detonating Kuang Shi on impersonator an abuse?
    Is using Smoke and baiting with a Madtrap an abuse?
    Is baiting ZoC ARO with a non-stealth trooper an abuse?
    Is delaying with a Sixth Sense hacker an abuse?
    Is jumping a trooper from a roof after possessing it an abuse?
    Is jumping your own trooper in place to wound it so that it can be healed to do a classified an abuse? What about using biolocator on a Kuang shi?

    Those are all scenarios that often pop up, who's to decide which are okay and which aren't? They all fit the rules. I personally think some of these situations could be removed by the ruleset, but who am I to decide which ones are "fair" and which ones are not? Why would I blame a player for using some of them and not some other?

    Player should not have to try and worry about stepping on eggshells whenever they go to a game, they should just have to worry about sticking to the rules and the rules in place should be the structure.

    I'm personally adding a house rule of "You need a minimum of 295 points when building a list." so that the Show of Force scenario doesn't happen and I wouldn't want to have to deal with that scenario. This is honestly a rather extreme scenario.
     
    Xeurian and Hecaton like this.
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    I'd set it lower, at like 270, but it's one option to prevent this. I'd rather just get rid of the Retreat rules as they're implemented in ITS to begin with.
     
    Xeurian and Diphoration like this.
  16. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    496
    Yeah, from experience, every time a game ends due to End in Retreat, neither of the player are actually enjoying themselves.

    You'll have the retreat player feel like they don't deserve the win, because all they did was use their last model and push a button while dying.

    You'll have the other player feel like they got cheated out of a win, because they managed to do the objective before their opponent, clear them off the field, and then lose to a single die roll without the chance to take their last turn.

    I like the Retreat rule, I don't like the End in Retreat rule. Robbing a player of an entire turn because they dominated you doesn't feel good for anyone.
     
    Xeurian and Mahtamori like this.
  17. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    554
    There's a lot to unpack here.

    So, yes. I agree that it would be much, much better if CB's rule set prevented asinine abuses like the above.

    (Noting, of course, that the trick above is actually pretty terrible, because you're relying on the Lt roll to get first turn and then hoping that whatever few orders you spend in your first turn don't result in catastrophic AROs.)

    I also agree that it's important that both players operate unfettered within the scope of the rule set, with neither being shamed for leveraging the rules more skillfully. House-ruling is a great way to limit the game and limit your own growth within the game.

    I'd note that the core purpose of this game is to have fun. The game is working as intended when both players are having fun. The rules are written to provide an agreed structure/framework for said fun. I'd argue that using the rules to cement a victory for yourself in a fashion that is non-interactive and unavoidable for the other player is not fun and contrary to the purpose of the rules/game. Yes, the rules are the problem here but fundamentally it takes two to tango:

    1. A faulty rule set, this is something CB can fix (we can argue about whether they will fix it or if they even care to another time).

    2. A willingness and awareness on the part of one player to deny their opponent fun in order to maximise their own enjoyment.
    We can only do so much to address the former but we are, each of us, completely in control of the second factor.

    It's a curious grey area, though. If I heard an MRRF player complain about their opponent's Kamau sniper being OP, I'd suggest that they have the choice of either upping their game with MRRF or switching over the VIRD themselves (or a faction that trumps MSV2 snipers). Both players have access to the same rule set and factions as each other, so it's an even playing field.

    However, the hypothetical scenario abuse noted above crosses the line for me, even though it's something that is within the current rule set and is available to basically every player/faction.

    I'll ponder on this.

    Anyways, yes, Ends on Retreat is something that I think needs to be addressed. I can see how it is intended to be used as an artificial brake on 'every mission is annihilation if you try hard enough' but also how it corrupts how the game resolves in other ways.

    Interesting thoughts...
     
  18. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    Since your opponent doesn't get to know your list before they make the call on 1st or 2nd turn, it's primarily useful in missions like Power Pack where the last player to have an Active turn has the last word on the objectives. It's pretty hard to ARO a ninja with a Sat Zone in the way.

    That's very subjective. There's enjoyment to be found in using an existing system of rules and pulling off a creative win in a way that wouldn't be expected (i.e. forcing a retreat top of round 1). Is it fun for the other player? Maybe not. They also might think it's hilarious. In any case, I find the idea that you can lose turns because you killed your opponent's dudes *too hard* to be entirely un-fun; I'm indifferent on this issue, as I think it's a problem that shows how poorly conceived and formulated the ITS Retreat rules are, and how they fundamentally come from an anti-fun perspective. In a competitive game your opponent should have a lot of latitude to approach the game on their terms without your input; they have a strategy, they'll implement it, and its relative efficacy vs. yours will determine who comes out on top. The ITS Retreat rules essentially are saying that players who like aggressive, highly interactive playstyles are having badwrongfun. My opinion is that if you want to play the wargame equivalent of Agricola, go ahead, and the rules will see who can score the most points after three rounds. In particular, the application of the ITS Retreat rules to zone control missions like Quadrant Control creates perverse incentives for players to end the game early; I've seen players purposefully not use NWI on their troopers (falling unconscious instead) to go into Retreat more easily and steal a victory. That's a consequence of these rules, and the, in my opinion, unsportsmanlike thought underpinning them.
     
    Musterkrux likes this.
  19. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    554
    Yeah, it's hard to balance both aggressive and scoring play styles and write a rule set that rewards both.

    I'll confess I don't have a solution that makes everyone happy. :)
     
  20. Vaulsc

    Vaulsc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    399
    Oh boy, another EOR thread!!
     
    A Mão Esquerda and Musterkrux like this.