Matrix Games Forums

Let's say there are 3 hexes in a row.
hex 1: 2 corp + 1 div
hex 2: 1 corp + 1 div
hex 3: 1 corp

Then hex 1 is attacked. Shouldn't the 2 corps + 1 div be able to retreat as follows:
1 corp -> hex 2
1 corp + 1 div -> hex 3

MWIF is instead retreating the div to hex 2 then 1 corp to hex 3 then saying the other corp is destroyed. Is this correct?

Yup - that's good play. The attacker decides retreats and can retreat units one by one. As long as the retreat priorities are met, this is legal.

Yep. Good as gold.

Although one could claim that MWIF shouldn't force good play on the player. [:D]

Holy sh*t!

Can't the defender choose where the units retreat? Or is it selected automatically?

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Can't the defender choose where the units retreat? Or is it selected automatically?

The rule states that it is the attacker that retreats the units. And a clarification says that it is ok to do as MWIF did above.

However, as I went to the relevant rule in order to copy it to this post I got a bit confused by the Deviation. To me, the deviation suggests that MWIF didn't handle the situation correctly. Now I am somewhat confused.

[&:] [:(]

Edit: Cut from RAC.

Retreats
If the result includes an ‘R’, the attacker retreats all surviving defending land units 1 hex (even if
disorganized). You retreat units individually and you can retreat them into different hexes. You can’t retreat a unit
into a hex it couldn’t move into.
If a unit could retreat into several hexes, you must retreat it according to these priorities:
1. a hex not in an enemy ZOC and not causing over-stacking.
2. a hex not in enemy ZOC and causing over-stacking.
3. a hex in an enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and not causing over stacking.
4. a hex in enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit and causing over stacking.
[Clarification. A unit cannot retreat “back into” the hex from which it started its retreat. Note that #2 takes
precedence over #3, which can result in units being overstacked (and destroyed) even though a #3 retreat path exists
which would not destroy any units. There are no overstacked hexes at the end of this step, because as part of this
step, units are destroyed rather than remain overstacked - Nov. 29, 2007. The attacker may choose a retreat path of
#4 priority hexes that results in a retreating unit being destroyed due to overstacking, even if an alternative path of
#4 priority hexes exists that lets the units survive - Mar. 7, 2008.] [Deviation. If a unit can be safely retreated, then
the attacker has to do so. This overrides and replaces the last sentence in the preceding clarification.]
Destroy a unit if it can’t retreat under any of these priorities. [Clarification. If overstacking causes units to
be destroyed, retreating units are destroyed - Mar. 7, 2008.]
If the unit ends in a hex which is still to be attacked, or where it is overstacked, continue retreating the unit
according to the same priorities (or destroy it if this is not possible).

Q18.2-4 18.2
11.16.5
11.11.5
A stack of CW units in Belgium includes
an INF and an HQ-I. A German attack on
this stack achieves an ‘R’ result. The only
eligible retreat path is to a hex in
unconquered France and at the time of the
land combat, the Foreign Troop
Commitment for CW units in France is not
enough to allow the CW INF to stack in
France. Can the Germans retreat the CW
units into hexes in France in such a way
that because the foreign troop
commitment is not met and the INF unit
arrives in France before the HQ and is
thus destroyed for illegal stacking?

The CW units must be retreated if
possible, so in this example, the HQ must
be retreated first. Date 29/12/2007

11.11.5: There are some exceptions:
• units can’t enter the home country of a non cooperating
major power on the same side unless they
satisfy the foreign troop commitment rules (see 18.2);
11.16.5: You can’t retreat a unit into a hex it couldn’t
move into.
18.2: A major power or minor country unit that ends any
step in the home country of a friendly major power it
doesn’t co-operate with is destroyed unless:
ï it started the step there; or
ï it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the
foreign troop commitment limit.
(...)
You satisfy the foreign troop commitment limit if there is
at least one HQ from the unit’s home country there
(any Commonwealth HQ will do for Commonwealth
units) and the total number of that country’s non-HQ
units there is less than or equal to the total printed
reorganisation values of the HQs.

Comparing to this clarification, it seems obvious to me that the units need to be retreated if possible, thus doing it in a due way for this.

However in this one he suggests the opposite:

Q11.16-9 11.16.5 Hexes A B C D E - A B C D are fully
stacked, E is empty. There are no further
retreat possibilities. C is attacked and a R
result is received. May the attacker retreat
those units to B, then A, and kill them?

Units are retreated hex by hex so you
could retreat the units into hex B first and
then as the only other hex left to retreat to
is hex A the retreated units are then
destroyed. Date 07/03/2008

11.16.5: You retreat units individually and you can
retreat them into different hexes.
You can’t retreat a unit into a hex it couldn’t move into.
If a unit could retreat into several hexes, you must
retreat it according to these priorities:
1. a hex not in an enemy ZOC and not causing overstacking.
2. a hex not in enemy ZOC and causing over-stacking.
3. a hex in an enemy ZOC containing a friendly land
unit and not causing over stacking.
4. a hex in enemy ZOC containing a friendly land unit
and causing over stacking.
Destroy a unit if it can’t retreat under any of

From where you got that "deviation"?

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

From where you got that "deviation"?

RAC.

I am sorry that I forgot to write the source.

Sure a unit must be safely retreated but the attacker retreats them one-by-one and in whatever order he likes. If done cleverly, that means the rule was adhered to for the first two units, but the last one had nowhere to go. This is assuming all other hexes are empty and in EZoC, or contain attacker's units, or are impassable.

It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender - quite the opposite, really.

"Americans never retreat but withdraw." - unknown GI writing a letter home after a battle known as "Kasserine Pass"

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

From where you got that "deviation"?

RAC.

I am sorry that I forgot to write the source.

I should have guessed, for the concept of "deviation" sounded familiar to me but seemed alien to RAW or Clarifications.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

"Americans never retreat but withdraw." - unknown GI writing a letter home after a battle known as "Kasserine Pass"

I think every country has some of this "patriotic " sayings, I once heard one (not sure if it was from Spain, my country): "Our soldiers don't retreat, they just turn back and keep going forward".

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sure a unit must be safely retreated but the attacker retreats them one-by-one and in whatever order he likes. If done cleverly, that means the rule was adhered to for the first two units, but the last one had nowhere to go. This is assuming all other hexes are empty and in EZoC, or contain attacker's units, or are impassable.

It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender - quite the opposite, really.

Same could have been said of the first clarification I quoted, you can retreat the INF first and kill it because of FTC and then the HQ, after all "It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender". However Harry rules differently.

Unfortunately the second example goes exactly the opposite way. It's difficult to be 100% coherent in such a complex game.

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sure a unit must be safely retreated but the attacker retreats them one-by-one and in whatever order he likes. If done cleverly, that means the rule was adhered to for the first two units, but the last one had nowhere to go. This is assuming all other hexes are empty and in EZoC, or contain attacker's units, or are impassable.

It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender - quite the opposite, really.

Same could have been said of the first clarification I quoted, you can retreat the INF first and kill it because of FTC and then the HQ, after all "It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender". However Harry rules differently.

Unfortunately the second example goes exactly the opposite way. It's difficult to be 100% coherent in such a complex game.

That's not how it works...

RAW:

A major power or minor country unit that ends any step in the home
country of a friendly major power it doesn’t co-operate with is
destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit. (...)

Example: Two Commonwealth land units are retreated into France by
the German player (even though there was a free hex in Belgium that
the German player could have retreated them to). Unfortunately for
the Commonwealth, Gort and one Commonwealth fighter are already
in France. As Gort only has a reorganisation value of 2, at the end of
the Retreat step the Commonwealth player must destroy 1 of the
retreating land units.


This means that at the end of the retreat phase (when all units of that particular combat have been retreated) there is a check for FTC. So if your opponent first moves the INF and than the HQ into territory where FTC has to be taken into account, both should stay on the map...

The moment your opponent has retreated all your units is the moment that you decide which one to destroy if FTC rules apply.

During retreats themselves, your opponent decides which hex he wants to put your units in...

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sure a unit must be safely retreated but the attacker retreats them one-by-one and in whatever order he likes. If done cleverly, that means the rule was adhered to for the first two units, but the last one had nowhere to go. This is assuming all other hexes are empty and in EZoC, or contain attacker's units, or are impassable.

It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender - quite the opposite, really.

Same could have been said of the first clarification I quoted, you can retreat the INF first and kill it because of FTC and then the HQ, after all "It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender". However Harry rules differently.

Unfortunately the second example goes exactly the opposite way. It's difficult to be 100% coherent in such a complex game.

That's not how it works...

RAW:

A major power or minor country unit that ends any step in the home
country of a friendly major power it doesn’t co-operate with is
destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit. (...)

Example: Two Commonwealth land units are retreated into France by
the German player (even though there was a free hex in Belgium that
the German player could have retreated them to). Unfortunately for
the Commonwealth, Gort and one Commonwealth fighter are already
in France. As Gort only has a reorganisation value of 2, at the end of
the Retreat step the Commonwealth player must destroy 1 of the
retreating land units.


This means that at the end of the retreat phase (when all units of that particular combat have been retreated) there is a check for FTC. So if your opponent first moves the INF and than the HQ into territory where FTC has to be taken into account, both should stay on the map...

The moment your opponent has retreated all your units is the moment that you decide which one to destroy if FTC rules apply.

During retreats themselves, your opponent decides which hex he wants to put your units in...

It seems Harry forgot that part when he addressed the Clarification, according to his answer:

"The CW units must be retreated if
possible, so in this example, the HQ must
be retreated first. Date 29/12/2007"

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio




Same could have been said of the first clarification I quoted, you can retreat the INF first and kill it because of FTC and then the HQ, after all "It is not the attackers job to ensure minimum loss to the defender". However Harry rules differently.

Unfortunately the second example goes exactly the opposite way. It's difficult to be 100% coherent in such a complex game.

That's not how it works...

RAW:

A major power or minor country unit that ends any step in the home
country of a friendly major power it doesn’t co-operate with is
destroyed unless:
• it started the step there; or
• it started the step elsewhere and the unit satisfies the foreign
troop commitment limit. (...)

Example: Two Commonwealth land units are retreated into France by
the German player (even though there was a free hex in Belgium that
the German player could have retreated them to). Unfortunately for
the Commonwealth, Gort and one Commonwealth fighter are already
in France. As Gort only has a reorganisation value of 2, at the end of
the Retreat step the Commonwealth player must destroy 1 of the
retreating land units.


This means that at the end of the retreat phase (when all units of that particular combat have been retreated) there is a check for FTC. So if your opponent first moves the INF and than the HQ into territory where FTC has to be taken into account, both should stay on the map...

The moment your opponent has retreated all your units is the moment that you decide which one to destroy if FTC rules apply.

During retreats themselves, your opponent decides which hex he wants to put your units in...

It seems Harry forgot that part when he addressed the Clarification, according to his answer:

"The CW units must be retreated if
possible, so in this example, the HQ must
be retreated first. Date 29/12/2007"

[X(][X(] I never thought Harry could forget things... The example in the rulebook seems clear enough...

This is a different case. The unit(s) may die due to FTC, not due to retreat priorities combined with inability to retreat. The rules say you cannot retreat units to places they cannot move, but they can move there because FTC is assessed at the end of the step. FTC rules allow units to violate FTC as long as they adhere at the end of the step, FREX, CW air missions over France, RR moves by minors' units though other non-cooperating minors' territory, air transport, etc.

The FAQ describes one and one only situation where units cannot go somewhere due to FTC and that is the land movement step (as proven by FAQ Q18.2-11). The land combat step (not to mention naval transport, RR, and ATR steps all allow moving units to violate FTC without consequence until the end of those steps.

If Harry forgot anything it's that the order of the retreat in that particular example doesn't matter. But now suppose there's one hex in Belgium and one in France available. The attacker can retreat the INF to France and the HQ to Belgium (given retreat priorities are respected) and then the INF dies due to FTC at the end of the land combat step, just like in the example in the rules.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This is a different case. The unit(s) may die due to FTC, not due to retreat priorities combined with inability to retreat. The rules say you cannot retreat units to places they cannot move, but they can move there because FTC is assessed at the end of the step. FTC rules allow units to violate FTC as long as they adhere at the end of the step, FREX, CW air missions over France, RR moves by minors' units though other non-cooperating minors' territory, air transport, etc.

The FAQ describes one and one only situation where units cannot go somewhere due to FTC and that is the land movement step (as proven by FAQ Q18.2-11). The land combat step (not to mention naval transport, RR, and ATR steps all allow moving units to violate FTC without consequence until the end of those steps.

If Harry forgot anything it's that the order of the retreat in that particular example doesn't matter. But now suppose there's one hex in Belgium and one in France available. The attacker can retreat the INF to France and the HQ to Belgium (given retreat priorities are respected) and then the INF dies due to FTC at the end of the land combat step, just like in the example in the rules.

No, this is not correct. This is covered in 11.11.5 and FAQ: 18.2-3.

If the INF is to be retreated into France then it must be allowed to do so by the FTC. So either they are both retreated into the Belgian hex. Or the HQI is first retreated into France...




RAC: 11.11.5 Active major powers
You can move a land unit controlled by an active major power into any hex controlled by:
• that major power and its aligned minors; or
• another active major power on the same side (or its controlled minor countries); or
• a major power or minor country it is at war with.
There are some exceptions:
• units can’t enter the home country of a non co-operating major power on the same side unless they satisfy the
foreign troop commitment rules (see 18.2); and
• minor country units can’t enter a hex controlled by another minor country aligned with their side unless they
satisfy the foreign troop commitment rules.
• units cannot enter a country controlled by another power on their side without permission of the owner.

FAQ: Q18.2-3
Q: If answer to Q18.2-2 is yes, is a retreat
allowed into a hex where Foreign Troop
Commitments would be violated, even if
other hexes are available? The R result
says that valid ending hexes are those that
do not cause a stacking violation.

A: Or even if the answer to Q18.2-2 is no, no
you may not retreat into a hex a unit can
not move into.

For reference:

FAQ: Q18.2-2
Q: Is the failure to meet the Foreign Troop
Commitments an overstacking situation?
(who gets to decide what is lost?)

A: NO -- it determines whether a unit can
enter a country. Once in, it's OK even if
HQ moves out. Date 29/12/2007


FAQ: 18.2-4
Q: A stack of CW units in Belgium includes
an INF and an HQ-I. A German attack on
this stack achieves an ‘R’ result. The only
eligible retreat path is to a hex in
unconquered France and at the time of the
land combat, the Foreign Troop
Commitment for CW units in France is not
enough to allow the CW INF to stack in
France. Can the Germans retreat the CW
units into hexes in France in such a way
that because the foreign troop
commitment is not met and the INF unit
arrives in France before the HQ and is
thus destroyed for illegal stacking?

A: The CW units must be retreated if
possible, so in this example, the HQ must
be retreated first.