(Answered) Forced Withdrawal rules - includes an apparent BMM/TW disparity

[Alfaryn]

The last bullet point on p. 258 TW states, that under Forced Withdrawal rules "Vehicles and 'Mechs that are immobilized - usually through motive, leg or gyro damage - are shot down and typically abandoned[...]". There are two problems with that statement.

Problem 1. It uses word "immobilized" without defining what it means in game terms. It certainly does not mean the same as "immobile" as described on p. 110 under "Firing at Immobile Targets", since no amount of gyro damage can make a 'Mech an immobile target, and the only way to make a 'Mech immobile through leg damage is to destroy all four legs of a Quad. At the same time reactor shot-downs due to heat or pilot/crew unconsciousness should be no reason to abandon a unit (either because it will likely be operational during the next turn in case of a shot-down or because the pilot/crew is in no shape to leave in case of unconsciousness). Immobilization for the purposes of Forced Withdrawal should be better defined then. In particular it should be answered if:
- a vehicle, that has been permanently reduced to 0 MP by damage, but not immobile is considered immobilized for the purposes of forced withdrawal,
- how much leg damage a 'Mech needs to suffer to be considered immobilized for the same purposes? In particular is a 'Mech considered immobilized if it loses one leg (two in case of a Quad) and is reduced to 1 MP, and needs a very difficult PSR just to get up (making it unlikely to leave the field without tearing itself, or it's pilot apart in the process, much less continue walking around and fighting; remaining on the ground an shooting from there also seems like a desperation move if you can't reliably stand up before some enemy 'Mech runs over to you, unloads all its weapons with a -2 to hit for firing at a prone adjacent 'Mech, and kicks you for good measure), or it is considered immobilized only after being permanently reduced to zero MP by loss of two legs (three in case of a Quad)? As far as the fluff goes the MechWarriors in the stories I've read seem to abandon their Mechs after losing only one leg, but I don't know if it should translate directly to the game.

In case of gyro damage it seems obvious that this rule kicks in only after gyro destruction, since in the first bullet point of the Crippling Damage section it clearly says that a 'Mech that has suffered one gyro hit need to also suffer one engine hit to fall under Forced Withdrawal rules, and all gyros under TW rules are destroyed after taking a second hit. Still it would be nice to see it explicitly stated in the rules.

Problem 2. None of the rules from the last bullet point on p. 258 TW (abandoning immobilized units) appear in the BMM (on p. 81 where Forced Withdrawl is described). The only rules there are from the first bullet point on p. 258 TW (crippling a 'Mech). The only thing about 'Mech being immobilized is that under Forced Withdrawal rules it is considered destroyed if it can both no longer move AND has lost all of its weapons. the rules from the last bullet point, that are relevant to 'Mechs, should probably be added to BMM (after they are clarified as described above).

My take on solving Problem 1: Personally I would make crews abandon their non-infantry units during the nearest End Phase (and considered destroyed for the purposes of TW/BMM):
- if they are permanently reduced to 0 MP (in case of grounded Aerospace units maybe with an exception of DropShips if they were made permanently unable to lift off),
- if they were otherwise permanently unable to leave their hex (like a vehicle stuck in a double basement - see p. 179 TW), unless they were deliberately deployed in such place at the beginning of a game (for example a vehicle or a 'Mech with no jump/VTOL/WiGE movement deployed on top of a tall one hex building or hill because of the superior LOS, or protection from rampaging Berserker or Neanderthal 'Mechs such place may offer for example); of course the players can always rule (and under typical circumstances probably should), that no such deployment is legal,
- in case of 'Mechs if they lost their gyro,
- in case of 'Mechs if they lost at least one leg (two in case of Quads), as they would need to make a +5 PSR roll just to stand up (one in six chance for a regular skill 5 pilot, difficult even for veterans), and another +5 PSR roll to avoid pilot damage if they fail the first one, and they would be limited to one attempt per turn, and if after standing up they were for any reason forced to make another PSR for any reason they would likely be back on the ground with an even more banged up pilot.

A side benefit of this solution would be that you could scratch the bit about a unit being considered destroyed if it can no longer move and has lost all of it's weapons (both from the first bullet point on p. 258 TW, and from p. 81 BMM), as just being unable to move would be enough to force crew to abandon a unit, and that would mean that a unit is essentially destroyed.

[Xotl]

My original notes on the alterations to Forced Withdrawal in the Manual and the reasons behind them were one of the few things lost in a file mishap.  However, I can remember the intent quite clearly.

The problem with the last bullet point is exactly as you note: it doesn't really define anything.  What's immobilized in this case?  It tells us what "typically" represents this, but that's clearly not exhaustive and isn't even authorative regarding the things actually listed.  What defines "the most fanatical crews"?  What defines "the most dire circumstances"?  What represents "orders from the highest possible source" and how would that be reflected in a typical TW-level game?

A closer reading really makes it clear that this is essentially a fluff note, appended at the end of rules text.  For that reason, it was excised from the Manual (and Withdrawal generally clarified as per usual).

The paragraph should be removed from TW: this was one of the errata pieces resulting from the Manual's creation that I lost track of.  I'll be adding it to the TW errata now.

[Alfaryn]

I wouldn't say that the last bullet point in TW needs to be cut entirely, just rewritten. This point may be poorly written, but I feel what it is trying to communicate is needed for the Forced Withdrawal to emulate, what they are supposed to emulate. Common sense says, that a 'Mech without gyro or legs is crippled (and indeed such damage usually puts a 'Mech in a worse situation, than crippling damage from the first bullet point in TW), but no other point under the Forced Withdrawal rules defines it as such. Such damage were requires separate rules as a unit, that can't leave it's hex obviously can't retreat from the board as other crippled units do (hence the separate bullet point in TW).

As for the "the most fanatical crews", "the most dire circumstances", "orders from the highest possible source" in game terms I just always took it to mean simply "not operating under Forced Withdrawal rules" - no need for it to be more complicated then that. After all the use of Forced Withdrawal rules is subject to player's agreement before the game, and agreeing not to use them is more or less the same as saying "the circumstances are dire enough for the forces involved to fight to the death".

On the subject of optional rules - I feel that Forced Withdrawal in BMM should state, that their use depends on scenario/player's agreement or be otherwise marked as optional. Even changing the section title from "Forced Withdrawal" to "Forced Withdrawal (optional)" may be enough, although clearly pointing, that a scenario may require one side to follow those rules, while the other one (the better motivated, or more desperate one for example) or even some individual units may be exempt from them. At least that is how I always read the TW rules, and any published scenarios mentioning Forced Withdrawal I've seen.

Edit: There is one situation, when I could see the Forced Withdrawal rules work the way they do in BMM at the moment (retreat when your unit is badly damaged, but mobile, fight to the death if it is immobilized) - that is if you are facing an opposition who is known to kill or torture captured opponents, but I'm under impression this is a relatively rare behaviour in BT universe (except maybe for some pirates, particularly fanatical WoB troops and the like). Ultimately the specific conditions for Forced Withdrawal or unit abandonment should be subject to player agreement/GM or scenario author decision. The "fluff" in the last bullet point on p. 258 TW is probably meant to be a guideline on when to do it or not, but I thing, that the rule set could benefit from specific rules determining when a unit is "immobilized enough" to be abandoned.

[Xotl]

On the subject of optional rules - I feel that Forced Withdrawal in BMM should state, that their use depends on scenario/player's agreement or be otherwise marked as optional. Even changing the section title from "Forced Withdrawal" to "Forced Withdrawal (optional)" may be enough, although clearly pointing, that a scenario may require one side to follow those rules, while the other one (the better motivated, or more desperate one for example) or even some individual units may be exempt from them. At least that is how I always read the TW rules, and any published scenarios mentioning Forced Withdrawal I've seen.

The start of the chapter outright states that everything in it is optional.  This includes the Forced Withdrawal rules.

[Alfaryn]

The start of the chapter outright states that everything in it is optional.  This includes the Forced Withdrawal rules.

Indeed it does! Sorry for not noticing. Sometimes I get so focused on some rules detail, that I forget to check for such statement elsewhere, like at the beginning of the chapter.

Looks like with your change to TW, there is no rules disparity between TW and BMM regarding Forced Withdrawal, although I would still argue (as I've discussed above), that there should be some rules about abandoning permanently immobilized equipment. In a universe, where prisoners of war, are usually treated well, and ransomed, exchanged for prisoners taken by the other side, or made bondsmen, it usually makes little sense for a pilot or crew of a unit, that is unable to move to continue fighting as long as the unit has something to shoot with (as is the case under current rules).

Edit: From gameplay perspective, if we assume, that the Forced Withdrawal are supposed to shorten games by eliminating units, that due to damage are unlikely to seriously influence the outcome of the game, but still could take a lot of time to be destroyed, it also makes sense to have rules for abandoning immobilized units. A 'Mech with no leg or a gyro can still take a lot of punishment, but since it is suffering +2 to all attack rolls, and may be unable to fire some of it's weapons (those mounted on legs and one arm for example), and generally be less of a factor in the game (other than as a damage sponge), than a 'Mech with a decent ammount of heat sinks, that has suffered one engine and one gyro hit, or even two engine hits (and is in Forced Withdrawal) because of it.