Moving to leave LOS while Engaged

[Dante42]

Ok, this might be obvious but I want to clarify something.  Say I have Hannah with a range of three engaged with Bad Juju and Zoraida.  Zoraida only needs to move a small amount behind the muck man to break LOS, but still be within my engagement range.  Is she able to use an AP to move behind Juju so she is no longer engaged without Hannah getting a disengaging strike?  The rule book says to be engaged you must be within engagement range and have los, so she would no longer be engaged after the move.  In my (admittedly damaged) mind this would be disengaging and would allow a disengaging strike.  My opponent thought not.    The FAQ doesn't have an answer that I saw.  Any input would be appreciated.

[jonahmaul]

I think it would allow a disengaging strike.  When declaring a Walk action that leaves a model's engagement the opposing model gets to take a disengaging strike.  By declaring a walk action that would move Zorida behind Bad Juju you are declaring a walk action that would leave Hannah's engagement and so she would get to take the disengaging strike (before you move and if you lose you would have spent the AP but not get to move behind BJ).  That would be my interpretation of it but I'm interested to see what others offer (I have got rules worong before!).

[doctorlucky]

I'd say that is a disengaging strike. However if Juju moved to block LOS to Zoradia, there would not be a disengaging strike.

[Phinn]

When declaring a Walk action that leaves a model's engagement...

It is actually engagement range not engagement as such.

 

Disengaging (Malifaux 2E - Rules Manual, page 48):

If a model wishes to leave an enemy model’s engagement range with a Walk Action...

[lusciousmccabe]

I'd say that is a disengaging strike. However if Juju moved to block LOS to Zoradia, there would not be a disengaging strike.

 

This.

 

Engagement range includes line of sight so if Zoraida goes to walk behind Bad Juju she is leaving Hannah's engagement range.

[Phinn]

Engagement range includes line of sight...

According to rules [Engagements (Malifaux 2E - Rules Manual, page 48)] difference between Engagement Range and being Engaged is:

• Engagement Range - distance of model's longest Attack Action
• being Engaged - being within Engagement Range and having Line of Sight

[Dirial]

I'd say that is a disengaging strike. However if Juju moved to block LOS to Zoradia, there would not be a disengaging strike.

 

I would agree to this. Just an assumption, though.

[Csonti]

Of course I can see the counter-argument based on RAW but pretty sure the intent is that you do have a chance to stop an enemy model who leaves engagement (with breaking LoS) during a Walk Action without moving out of the opponent's engagement range. This is just a sloppy wording in the rulebook. Maybe there was even a thread about this.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yeah, ranges in Malifaux generally also assume LOS unless they state otherwise, so I'd agree with DrLucky

[StuffedKiwi]

I agree there's an important distinction between Engagement and Engagement Range. But if we spell out the scenario with terrain intervening instead of a model intervening, I think the situation is easier to understand.

(a) Imagine Zoraida is within 3 inches of Hannah, but with a height 5 Blocking wall between them, such that Hannah has no Line of Sight to Zoraida. I presume that none of us are going to say argue that Zoraida is engaged with Hannah, nor that Hannah would get to make a Disengaging Strike against Zoraida, were she to move away? I would say, equally, that the intervening wall means Zoraida is not within Hannah's Engagement Range, even though she is within 3 inches of Hannah.

( Imagine Zoraida is within 3 inches of Hannah, but with a height 5 Blocking wall partially between them, such that Hannah has does have Line of Sight to Zoraida. Now I think we all would agree they are engaged. Suppose that Zoraida moves in such that she is still within 3 inches of Hannah, but now fully behind the intervening wall, so that Hannah no longer has LoS. Opinion 1 would suggest that Hannah gets no Disengaging Strike, since Zoraida is still within her Engagement Range? But I would argue (Opinion 2) that since Engagement Range does not extend to places where a model cannot see, like through walls, Zoraida is indeed leaving Hannah's Engagement Range, and so Hannah gets to make a Disengaging Strike.

© I know that in all sorts of ways models and terrain do not work in the same way, but I think in this way they do. Juju is like the intervening wall in that he blocks LoS, and in that Hannah's Engagement Range does not extend to the areas behind him that she cannot see. So In the original example, Zoraida walking behind Juju, to a place out of Hannah's LoS (though still within 3 inches of Hannah) IS a walk that ends out of Engagement Range, just like the walk to behind the wall would be in ( above, and so provokes a Disengaging Strike.

My two cents.

 

Edit: so apparently a 'b' before a parenthesis automatically turns into a sunglasses-smiley-face, on my editor, and a 'c' between parentheses turns into a copyright sign, Sorry about that.

Further edit: just read that earlier thread in its entirety, which covered all these options, and seemed to end with a sense that RAW allows for some odd/funky/makes-no-sense things, in contravention of what most people thought was RAI. It would perhaps be nice to get some Wyrd-level clarification.

[Dante42]

Thanks everyone for you input.  Still not sure about Wyrd's intent, but I guess the rules as written seem to indicate this can be done.  Bummer, but means I can use it too, I guess.

[doctorlucky]

im going to continue to play it the way I mentioned until/if wyrd says something. Look at it - "Hi, I'm zoraida, don't mind me I'm just going to walk over here and lose your line of sight right around this wall. You can still reach me if there wasn't a big a** wall here right? Well there is and you can't see me so PEACE I'm out." 

 

That does not sit well with me. If my opponent walks out of line of sight, im getting that attack to stop them.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I think that's what everyone's saying you should do (disengaging strike regardless of how you disengage (by walking)).

[Phinn]

Malifaux 2E FAQ 3-01-15

 

Q: If two models are engaged, and one of them wishes to take a Walk Action which will result in it no longer being in LoS of the model it is engaged with (without actually leaving the engagement range) will this provoke a disengaging strike?
A: No. Disengaging strikes only occur if the model intends to leave the engagement range. Although the models will no longer be engaged once their LoS to each other is broken, no disengaging strike occurs unless the model is also leaving the engagement range.

[StuffedKiwi]

Not a fan of that ruling.

[Dirial]

Not a fan of that ruling.

 

Me too. Meh. At least it's in line with the rules already in place.

[zFiend]

Well at least it's cleared up.

[Ausplosions]

Exactly as it was written. Cool.

[Csonti]

Not a fan of that ruling.

 

Me neither. Completely counter-intuitive and can't see the benefit of this rule for the system as a whole. Illogical without a reason.

[jonahmaul]

Another one who think the ruling is a bit daft, especially as it negates the usefulness of tying up several models in combat in some instances.  But at least it is in the FAQ and clear now.

[Dirial]

Another one who think the ruling is a bit daft, especially as it negates the usefulness of tying up several models in combat in some instances.  But at least it is in the FAQ and clear now.

 

It won't be that common, I think. You need a bigger model to hide behind, and need to stay in engagement, so it mostly matters to models with large melee ranges.

[DeleteAccount]

I don't think either that you will be able to pull it off much, but yeah, I'd rather LoS had been a factor on this.

[Csonti]

It won't be that common, I think. You need a bigger model to hide behind, and need to stay in engagement, so it mostly matters to models with large melee ranges.

 

Don't forget the terrain aspect. It will be definitely a common factor on large melee ranges combined with models around a building's corner, a high wall, small patches of dense terrain etc.

[Dirial]

Don't forget the terrain aspect. It will be definitely a common factor on large melee ranges combined with models around a building's corner, a high wall, small patches of dense terrain etc.

 

Don't know if it will be common, but you're right. Terrain factors in as well. Still, it will only really come into play with large melee ranges, I think.

[Math Mathonwy]

It won't be that common, I think. You need a bigger model to hide behind, and need to stay in engagement, so it mostly matters to models with large melee ranges.

Why would it need to be a bigger model? You can place the model behind one of the same size in order to break LOS. I do this often if I wish to break Seb's Catalyst Aura to McM.

[Dirial]

Why would it need to be a bigger model? You can place the model behind one of the same size in order to break LOS. I do this often if I wish to break Seb's Catalyst Aura to McM.

 

Well, yeah, you can do that. The FAQ made that clear. It also says that it would be extremely hard to line up and thus is a bitch to implement into games for me. In our group we pretty much simply don't do it, as it doesn't seem to be encouraged and we lose enough time without it.