Fighting Withdrawal

[JoeCarr28]

Page 46 of the rulebook: "Alternately, the character may begin backing away (at up to half normal walking movement) while continuing to fight (if the opponent remains within reach, that is, follows the retreating character). This is termed a fighting withdrawal."

How does this work in practice, particularly when playing with miniatures and floor plans?

For example, suppose we have two combatants, A and B, engaged in melee. A has the initiative and attacks B. When it's B's turn, he decides to perform a fighting withdrawal.

- Does B get a chance to attack A before moving backwards?

- If B does move backwards, does A get to automatically follow-up (even if he's already performed his action this round) so that the two remain engaged in melee? Or do they disengage by virtue of B's withdrawal?

- Or does B withdraw before attacking (according to the normal move-attack order of things), and then only get to attack if he's still adjacent to an opponent following the withdrawal.

This could be very important to Karl in Marketstone game!

[dymondy2k]

That is a good question.. to me it sounds like a fighting withdrawal just changes the order of combat, so instead of move-fight, its fight-move. When I think of fighting withdrawal in real life I imagine the guy moving backwards, engaging the enemy, allowing his teammates to get behind him and out of harms way before they make a hasty exit. But you can't really 'Make' the enemy engage the characters covering the withdrawal unless your in a hallway or corridor and can effectively block it. Otherwise the enemy can slip around you and chase the guys your trying to cover.

[Hywaywolf]

I've never liked the ruled that didn't allow an attack and then a move, so I allow the fighting withdrawal to work that way. If A is the one who wants to use fighting withdrawal and B is the opponent, as a balance, I would allow B to attack A on A's initiative if A has the higher initiative. That way A doesn't get a free shot before he backs up into a room where 2 other PC's have set up a 3 on one scenario for A to step back into. Not sure when that would ever happen though .

[Solomoriah]

If you make a fighting withdrawal, by the book, you don't get an attack unless the opponent pursues you. A fighting withdrawal simply allows you to avoid a "parting shot" as you move away.

Though I don't elaborate in detail, my intent is that a combatant be able to move, then hold the unused attack until an opponent closes with him (or her or it); no attack is made if no opponent comes in range.

I don't have a problem with this, myself, as it is a retreat (as opposed to a rout); when retreating, the idea is that you are leaving combat...

On the other hand, I do know some who allow move and attack in either order. I do recommend, to save your sanity, that you don't allow split moves with an attack in the middle. Seriously, you'll regret it.

[JoeCarr28]

If you make a fighting withdrawal, by the book, you don't get an attack unless the opponent pursues you. A fighting withdrawal simply allows you to avoid a "parting shot" as you move away.

Though I don't elaborate in detail, my intent is that a combatant be able to move, then hold the unused attack until an opponent closes with him (or her or it); no attack is made if no opponent comes in range.

I don't have a problem with this, myself, as it is a retreat (as opposed to a rout); when retreating, the idea is that you are leaving combat...

On the other hand, I do know some who allow move and attack in either order. I do recommend, to save your sanity, that you don't allow split moves with an attack in the middle. Seriously, you'll regret it.

Thank you! That's perfectly clear to me now.

[Metroknight]

I just dealt with a fighting withdrawal in my game last night. I allowed him to backup while attacking since he had a spear. He still had reach on his opponent with it otherwise it would have been a move and hold action where he would be able to attack before his opponent could if the opponent pressed back into combat.

[Solomoriah]

Well, that makes sense. You might even interpret the closing/reach rule to allow that sort of thing... do a fighting withdrawal, then regardless of the die rolls you are at least tied with the opponent when you attack. As long as you have room to do it, you can ensure you are never slower than the opponent.

[Joe the Rat]

Just watch that last step, it's a doozy.

[dymondy2k]

So its really just a move( at half speed) but with the ability to hold your attack until/if your pursuer attacks you?

[Joe the Rat]

That plus not provoking a "parting shot"