[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I don't really know what your point is. I quoted the 13th Age rules to provide an example (as I understand them) of what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] had in mind (as I understood him) in referring to a "terrible price". AbdulAlahzred agreed that I was providing such an example.
The fact that you interpret those passages differently from everyone else posting in this thread, including AbdulAlhazred who was a 13th Age playtester, is of no significance to my reason for posting them to explain to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] had in mind.
You might consider, as a reason speaking against your interpretation, that (1) it makes the rule silly rather than sensible, and (2) produces a contradiction with the suggestion that "[t]he campaign-loss rule is key to making combat meaningful." And you might consider, as the basis for revising your interpretation, the following description of a "campaign loss": something that the party was trying to do fails in a way that going back and finishing off those enemies later won’t fix. This doesn't imply that the loss can, as such, be fixed in some other way; it's making the point that the loss has an element in addition to not beating the enemies, and hence that going back and subsequently beating the enemies who forced the initial retreat won't, per se, fix the loss.
As I've said, whether the loss can be fixed some other way is something for play to discover. 13th Age is not designed around an approach to play where the GM has already decided what can or can't be done in the game. (This can be seen, for instance, in the text and sidebar for its Resurrection spell.)
The fact that you interpret those passages differently from everyone else posting in this thread, including AbdulAlhazred who was a 13th Age playtester, is of no significance to my reason for posting them to explain to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] had in mind.
You might consider, as a reason speaking against your interpretation, that (1) it makes the rule silly rather than sensible, and (2) produces a contradiction with the suggestion that "[t]he campaign-loss rule is key to making combat meaningful." And you might consider, as the basis for revising your interpretation, the following description of a "campaign loss": something that the party was trying to do fails in a way that going back and finishing off those enemies later won’t fix. This doesn't imply that the loss can, as such, be fixed in some other way; it's making the point that the loss has an element in addition to not beating the enemies, and hence that going back and subsequently beating the enemies who forced the initial retreat won't, per se, fix the loss.
As I've said, whether the loss can be fixed some other way is something for play to discover. 13th Age is not designed around an approach to play where the GM has already decided what can or can't be done in the game. (This can be seen, for instance, in the text and sidebar for its Resurrection spell.)