Retreats - which way is correct?

OK, an old chestnut came up during a very enjoyable game today.

Rule 7.6.2 states (in part): "If the retreat cannot even start due to a friendly or enemy Unit that is blocking the path then the Unit is destroyed"

So, it has probably been done to death but does this mean:

a) If the Unit can retreat even a millimetre, or perhaps a BU or some part of the required retreat before the path is blocked does that mean the Unit simply retreats to that position and halts there, in contact with the blocking unit

or

b) because the unit cannot complete its retreat distance it cannot even start to retreat and is therefore destroyed.

I don't mind which wa is the correct way to play, my initial reading when I started was (a) and that is how we played it today, but the competition group play it as (b), so before it becomes an issue when the two groups cross over I thought I'd seek advice from the team here.

thanks in advance

GG

Your interpretation is correct GG. If the retreating cannot retreat any distance because it is blocked it is destroyed. If it can retreat even a mm it moves as far as it can and then stops. Should it have to retreat at this point it would be destroyed.

Tarty, Felix et al - if accepted we may need to review and broadcast this as it represents a major change.

Ultimately it means that you will almost certainly get one retreat until you are pushed up hard against another unit, possibly in melee and if you lose a subsequent bound of combat then you are cactus.

I should add that this is how we play it and I thought we did so because of direction for the old Forum. Haven't found the reference but I did find this discussion between PilGrim and DAX (two experienced players.) No conclusion but two different perspectives. Perhaps a ruling form Lorenzo is needed.

http://impetus.forumsland.com/impetus-about4132.html&highlight=destroyed

Take a look at this quote from Lorenzo. The question was whether an enemy S unit behind the retreating unit can stop a retreating unit moving. Of course the S unit in question cannot technically touch the enemy unit so there must be at least a mm between the two. The retreating unit can touch the S unit (S units do not disperse from retreats.) It would require two retreats, the first moving into the S unit and the second causing the unit to be destroyed.

"I agree that a S unit could probably not be always destroyed a retiring formed unit but this in Impetus may happen if you retire twice, one to reach the S (and then you stop) and a second time when already in contact. So we are assuming a bad mauled unit that found itself somewhat "attacked" on their back from enemies, probably enough to go in panic.

http://impetus.forumsland.com/impetus-about3049.html&highlight=destroyed

This confirms that the retreater moves as far as he can and if he is forced to retreat a second time he is destroyed.

That was my understanding. You retreat as far as possible and stop and if hit again and forced to retreat after pursuit or in a new melee and are unable to move, then you are, as the man says, Cactus.

Dennis

This doesn't happen very often but I'm in the same  camp as Gaius and Dennis retreat as far as you can then if forced to retreat again it's destroyed. Good chance the unit in the rear would end up being a support in the subsequent round of melee as well...either way it's a sticky spot to be in.

The unit in the rear wouldn't necessarily be a Support Unit, but it and any other unit within 5U would be Disordered and lose a VBU if the unit in front was killed.

Dennis

S, FL,T and CL forced to retreat interpenetrate any troop type and placed behind EL are as per 6.2.2 and 7.6.2
Others in retreat push back and disorder friendly units.

By support I was talking about a support to the attacking unit Dennis .....light cavalry are good for getting in behind units.

Quite right about interpenetrations and push backs but I assumed we were talking about units that could not be interpenetrated.

And sorry, I thought you were referring to its own unit that the loser was pushed back into