Direction of retire

[Carriage]

So in the rules (pg 63?, no book on me) it has something like, "retiring units move directly away from the enemy that caused them to retire." Does this mean in the direction the enemy unit is facing, along the linebetween the centres of the units or something else?

[KendallB]

We pivot the losing unit until it is in front edge contact with the winning unit then perform the outcome move.

[Saxonian]

What about if the outcome move is caused by shooting, so no base contact?

[Carriage]

Also what if pivoting won't make front edge contact? Rear charge?

[Blathergut]

Shooting:

Directly away from the enemy unit shooting, so perpendicular to the enemy's front.
If two or more enemy units are shooting, then bisect the angles as best you can and move directly away from there.

Combat:

Directly away from the enemy's front, wherever that may be (in front of you, behind you, or beside you, etc.).
If two or more enemy in close combat, bisect the angles.

[Saxonian]

Also what if pivoting won't make front edge contact? Rear charge?

I think the intention is to pivot to contact the winners front edge.
Otherwise I suppose pivot to contact the edge where the contact is made - front, flank or rear.
Remember that the target will turn to face the assaulting unit, so the target would have to be hit from two directions for this to be an issue.
Though how lucky will a unit that is hit by two units, one in the flank or the rear, have to be to win the combat?

[Carriage]

Directly away from the enemy's front, wherever that may be (in front of you, behind you, or beside you, etc.).

When you say away, do you mean so that the retiring unit would end up in front of the winning unit assuming it moved far enough or do you mean so that you're always increasing the distance between the line of the front of the winner and the retiring unit?

Otherwise I suppose pivot to contact the edge where the contact is made - front, flank or rear.
Remember that the target will turn to face the assaulting unit, so the target would have to be hit from two directions for this to be an issue.

It can also happen with a flank charge or even a "frontal" charge that makes corner contact with the flank. If the charger loses which way do you pivot? Forwards so that your edges are now touching but you retreat perpendicular to the enemy front or backwards so that they touch the enemy front but are facing parallel to the enemy front?

[Blathergut]

Carriage: I don't understand your point #1 above. Pivot the losing unit so that its rear is parallel to the winning enemy's front. Make your outcome move straight away from the enemy.

[Carriage]

Consider a charge from the left that contacts a deep large unit's right flank with the right front corner of the charging unit but not actually a flank charge. The charging unit is past (or mostly past) the charged unit's front. If the charging unit loses what do you do? You say Pivot to make the respective front and rears parallel. Now, the charging unit is behind other's front. Do you retire towards the front line of the unit, cross it and then distance yourself from it, or do you go the other way?

As a further question, if you're supposed to move directly away from the enemy, why does the line of retire change angle depending on who won? There should be only one direction for each unit that should be opposite.

[Blathergut]

I would pivot the losing unit to be parallel with the winning unit's front. A bit of the losing unit's rear would be contacting a bit of the winning unit's front. Then retire perpendicular to the winning unit's front. You'd end up moving along a line extending the charge path.

Sorry, but this olde brain is too tired maybe to understand your second question. You just move directly (i.e. along the charge path or along the path of shooting, 90 degrees from the combat/shooting unit's front) away.

[Carriage]

You'd end up moving along a line extending the charge path.

The chargee(?) won, the charger lost. From what you're saying the retire would be near perpendicular to the charge path.

Also, this is all very hard without diagrams.

[Saxonian]

How's this for a solution:

If the target of the assault loses, they retire along a line perpendicular to the charger's front.
I think this is a nice, straightforward concept. Easy to identify and implement.

If the charger loses, there are two options:
I/ The charger retires along the line of their final approach, i.e. directly back from their position at contact.
2/ The charger pivots to conform to the face of the target on which the contact occurred, then moves directly away. In the case where the contact is on the corner of the target, the face is determined by the type of combat - frontal, flank or rear.

I think I prefer the first of these two options.
The second could result in the chargers retiring at a considerable tangent to the direction of approach which I think feels a bit weird, and could create some strange situations.
The first option would mean that the line of retire is always determined by the final approach of the charger, which makes for less confusion.

[Carriage]

Assuming I haven't missed another section of the rules that clarifies this (not unlikely), I don't see why using the line between the centres of the two units isn't correct. It's congruent with what to do if somehow two units remain in contact too.

[Saxonian]

I don't see why using the line between the centres of the two units isn't correct

The only issue I can see with this is that if the two opposing units are off-set, you could end up with a retire path that bears virtually no relation to the facing of either unit.

If a small LI unit in tactical is in front of the base on the very end of a large unit in line, and gets five hits - and I've seen it happen!!
Drawing a line between the centre point of the two units would result in a very angled retire.

[Carriage]

I suppose it depends on how you're modelling it. Once contact is made do the facings really mean anything? Would the units not be turning to face each other as they would if they remained in contact? The way I interpret it, once contact is made the units are only loosely represented by their footprint as corner contact doesn't make sense otherwise. So to me it makes more sense that the centre of mass runs away from the other centre of mass.

[Saxonian]

Would the units not be turning to face each other as they would if they remained in contact?

I have to admit this was not a section of the rules I was very familiar with, as I can't remember ever having units in contact at the end of the combat round.
After reading through them a few times, I now think this might be the best mechanism to use for assaults.

1/ Draw a line through the centre point of each unit.
2/ Pivot both units until they are perpendicular to this line.
3/ Shuffle the units forward (if necessary) so that they are once again in contact.
4/ Make any outcome moves/pursuits from these new positions.

This would make the line of retire/pursuit easily identifiable.
If the winner is not allowed to pursue, they will be left facing towards the enemy they have just defeated.

There will still be occasions where some unusual lines of retreat will occur, but this will happen whatever system is used.
It would warrant a bit of play-testing, though.

[paulbg]

I like this bi-setting angle solution

[Carriage]

So, I found this in the errata which is pretty conclusive.
Page 63: RETIRING UNITS: - Clarification. The direction of retire when in contact is in the direction faced by the enemy unit causing the outcome move, or bisecting the angle of facing if more than one enemy is in contact.

Doesn't solve it for when not in contact though. Probably best to stay consistent though.

[deadtorius]

I believe it stated in the rules you had to make an outcome move directly away from the enemy or enemies causing the move, so you would use the enemies front facing to determine the direction of the outcome move. Similar to being in contact.