Directional retreats by ranged attacks

[Nikator 0]

In ranged attacks with a range over 1 hex there is not necessarily are clearly opposite hex to the attacker as shown in the diagrams.

My group plays it in that way that we take the LOS from the attacker to the target and then use the hex on the opposite side of the target that would be crossed by lengthening the LOS as the primary retreat direction. All other rules (secondary retreat direction etc.) work then well.

Have i missed something? Is there already a ruling to deal with this i have not seen?

[KenToad 0]

Nikator said:

In ranged attacks with a range over 1 hex there is not necessarily are clearly opposite hex to the attacker as shown in the diagrams.

My group plays it in that way that we take the LOS from the attacker to the target and then use the hex on the opposite side of the target that would be crossed by lengthening the LOS as the primary retreat direction. All other rules (secondary retreat direction etc.) work then well.

Have i missed something? Is there already a ruling to deal with this i have not seen?

Yes, the ruling from the designer was that you use the original method of retreating for ranged attacks, i.e. the defender chooses one of the two hexes toward his/her side of the board.  Remember that adjacent can still be ranged, i.e. archers never trigger engagement tokens or get flanking bonuses.  I'm not certain if the designer clarified that case.  Hopefully, it will be in the next version of the FAQ/Errata.

[Ser Folly 27]

KenToad said:

 

Yes, the ruling from the designer was that you use the original method of retreating for ranged attacks, i.e. the defender chooses one of the two hexes toward his/her side of the board.  Remember that adjacent can still be ranged, i.e. archers never trigger engagement tokens or get flanking bonuses.  I'm not certain if the designer clarified that case.  Hopefully, it will be in the next version of the FAQ/Errata.

 

I wasn't able to verify that. FAQ speaks of attacks in general, thus Nikator's way to deal with retreats (and my solution as well) seems to be appropriate.

 

My regular opponent and me have decided to introduce a tertiary direction of retreat as well. That is the last hex which moves the unit away from the attacker after primary and secondary directions are ruled out...

Works quite fine.

[KenToad 0]

Ser Folly said:

KenToad said:

 

 

Yes, the ruling from the designer was that you use the original method of retreating for ranged attacks, i.e. the defender chooses one of the two hexes toward his/her side of the board.  Remember that adjacent can still be ranged, i.e. archers never trigger engagement tokens or get flanking bonuses.  I'm not certain if the designer clarified that case.  Hopefully, it will be in the next version of the FAQ/Errata.

 

 

 

I wasn't able to verify that. FAQ speaks of attacks in general, thus Nikator's way to deal with retreats (and my solution as well) seems to be appropriate.

 

My regular opponent and me have decided to introduce a tertiary direction of retreat as well. That is the last hex which moves the unit away from the attacker after primary and secondary directions are ruled out...

Works quite fine.

I'm sure your solution is just fine.  If you're interested in the official solution, ask the designer from the link in the support page thread at the top of this forum. 

He should repeat what I mentioned because he already said it before.  Hopefully, he will add the clarification to the next FAQ/Errata. 

But, yeah, you're welcome to play it how you want. 

Are you asking me to "verify" what I mentioned by finding the specific comment by the designer?  I only say that because I have my own set of house rules, so I don't generally tend to rely on the designer's rulings.  Maybe you're the same way.

Cheers