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.

[zFiend]

Well yeah it's possible basically but then again getting into measuring is it really like that or not is a waste of time. If there is nothing but their own models a way to do it, it's basically just settled by "I'm going after this solution" "check" keep playing.

[Seregon]

Also not a fan of this ruling. At all.

[Math Mathonwy]

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.

As ZFiend notes, we just declare our intentions and then place the model to the best of our ability. It really doesn't matter if the model is 1 mm to a side or something.

As for this ruling, do note that if you use it to properly disengage, you need to first expend the AP to move to the blind spot within the engagement range and only then can move out affecting your movement speed very severely. Of course if your aim is to just use a gun icon attack, then it's pretty handy.

[DocSchlock]

You still have to spend 2 AP to get out of engagement this way though.

You have to declare whether or not you're leaving engagement before you move the model. If you declare, Disengaging Strike. If you don't declare, you can't leave engagement range.

Edit: Sniped by Math

[Lysis]

Thinking outside the "two model" box, would this also gives incorporeal models an extra way to get away:

 

If 2x Ht2  models are right up against a wall (Ht 400), and one of the models is incorporeal, its first AP it moves to the other side of the wall, but within the measured Ml range of its attacker.  It's second AP it can just dart away as it is no longer within LoS.

[jonahmaul]

With the clarification you now get to spend one AP which is guaranteed to get you away instead of spending one AP that could end up getting wasted because you fail to disengage though.  This is much better to how I (and others) have interpreted the rule previously where you could spend both your AP trying to get away and failing or you could now spend one AP to move out of LoS then use an AP to do a projectile attack which you couldn't have done if the first move away had failed.

[Dirial]

As ZFiend notes, we just declare our intentions and then place the model to the best of our ability. It really doesn't matter if the model is 1 mm to a side or something.

 

That was my stance as well, before the FAQ. But the FAQ does seem to discourage that.

[Lysis]

Huggy will no longer be stuck in combat.

 

NOBODY puts huggy in a corner.

[zFiend]

Huggy will no longer be stuck in combat.

 

NOBODY puts huggy in a corner.

 

NOBODY I say! 

 

That is true, this does open up a few loopholes to get away though. We actually discussed this once in a game, that what if a model with Incorporeal moves to the other side of the wall while still basically being engaged can it then just dart away, we decided not to go down that path and just kept on melee fighting.

[Lucidicide]

Just going to go out on a limb and say a ghost walking through a wall probably does end a melee fight.

[Dirial]

Just going to go out on a limb and say a ghost walking through a wall probably does end a melee fight.

 

*like*

 

Also, in the name of the three stooges (plus hangers-on) who spent all their Likes in the Poetry thread today, I have to inform you that we think the limit on Likes is stooges-oppression. I was chosen to channel my inner Mei Feng and fight you because of that oppression.

 

*throws a Jackhammer kick at Aaron*

[Red Moon Head]

So now say Johan(na) is fighting Ophellia. 

Ophellia could drag Lenny over, walk around Lenny staying within 3" of Johan(na) to break engagement but no trigger a disengaging strike?

Thus leaving Johan(na) engaged with Lenny, Ophellia disengaged and free to shoot and no disengaging strikes trigger?!

It seems counterintuative but hey as a Gremlin play i'll play along  

[jonahmaul]

Exactly as you describe!  And it certainly is counter-intuitive. 

[Lucidicide]

Eh. Seems legitimate to me. Ophelia has just spent a bunch of her time getting someone else into combat with you so they can distract you and then slowly faded out behind them. It seems reasonable that it would now be difficult to stop Ophelia from doing what she wants because, you know, Lenny.

 

You can justify or not depending how you use your imagination on it. Generally speaking, breaking line of sight would end a melee engagement. And, if you happen to be in one of the few positions where you can actually take advantage of that, well, you can take advantage of that. Just like you could in real life.

[Lucidicide]

Keep in mind that the alternative here is that you can take disengaging strikes against models you cannot see. And that's a whole different kettle of fish which is way more counter-intuitive. I mean, I can't see you, how am I stopping you?

 

I just don't see how it's counter-intuitive that it works like this.

 

I would argue that the real break in logic is that disengaging strikes are only provoked when taking Walk actions where you would leave the engagement range and not also when you would leave LoS. Because that's really where the "problem" comes in.

 

But since there are models that can Charge out of an engagement, or you can have someone cast a spell on you and just Push out of an engagement without any strike ("Hey Johanna, attack Ophelia, she's walking away!" "No, she's not, she's pushing away so it's all good bro.") ...well, suffice it to say I'm comfortable saying that in a melee combat you could, in fact, quick duck behind a wall and run off before they have a chance to stop you.

[Red Moon Head]

Actually the Lenny distracting as Ophellia ducks away in throng of melee works in my mind I guess.

A disengaging strike is only taken if you can actually SEE the opponent leaving your melee range. It's perfectly realistic that you wouldn't try and stop someone leaving combat if you can't see them leaving I guess.

As a Lenny fan, I'm happy!

[StuffedKiwi]

I don't want to beat a dead horse about this -- I guess I don't want to beat a dead horse about anything, but maybe that's just me -- and I accept that Wyrd has made this decision in the way that they think best suits the needs of the game, and I'll play it this way.

BUT I also don't think that the examples on offer here really hold up as good 'reasons.' Aaron says:

 

the alternative here is that you can take disengaging strikes against models you cannot see. And that's a whole different kettle of fish which is way more counter-intuitive.

 

That's not the alternative being suggested here. Rather, what's being suggested is that you get to take a disengaging strike when a model tries to leave THAT PART OF YOUR ENGAGEMENT RANGE TO WHICH YOU HAVE LINE OF SIGHT, even if the place they are moving to, out of your Line of Sight, is still within your Engagement Range. All Disengaging Strikes happen at the moment of declaring movement, so while the moving model is still within Line of Sight.

 

Aaron also says it makes sense to him that:

 

a ghost walking through a wall probably does end a melee fight.

 

And I agree that ghosts probably do waft in and out of fights as they wish. But the wall doesn't seem the important part of that example, so much as the ghost part. The rules say I get to take a swipe at the ghost (in an attempt to keep it in the fight with me) when it walks away, so long as it's intending to go somewhere I can no longer reach it. The rules now also have been ruled to say that I DON'T get to take a swipe at the ghost if, in walking away, it actually walks not-so-far-away that I couldn't reach it, if I could reach through walls, just on the other side of the wall, say, and not through the wall and far away. And that really does seem counter-intuitive to me: If the ghost is going through-the--wall-and-far-away, I get to take a swipe to keep it in the fight with me, but if it's going through-the-wall-and-just-to-the-other-side, I don't?

 

The last example is:

 

Ophelia has just spent a bunch of her time getting someone else into combat with you so they can distract you and then slowly faded out behind them. It seems reasonable that it would now be difficult to stop Ophelia from doing what she wants because, you know, Lenny.

 

I agree, once Ophelia has faded out of Line of Sight behind Lenny, it does indeed seem fair that you are too busy with Lenny to stop Ophelia (who you can't see) drifting away. But the alternative being suggested in the thread above was that you would get to take a disengaging strike against Ophelia not when she, already out of Line of Sight, leaves your Engagement Range, but rather at the earlier moment when she tries to sneak behind Lenny and get out of Line of Sight. And that still seems sensible to me -- if I'm so keen to be in a fight with both of Ophelia and Lenny, why would it make sense that I DO get to take a Disengaging Strike against her when she moves to somewhere I can't hit her because she'll be far away from me, but DON'T get to do so when she moves somewhere I can't hit her but she's still close® to me?

 

In any case, those are my last words and thoughts on the matter, since you know, ruling made, I'm happy with that, let's move on. But I really don't think the examples on offer work to explain why it's a good ruling.

[Lucidicide]

To address the issue (walking out of LoS while remaining engaged), which I mentioned as the real 'problem' is not an FAQ, it's an errata. The FAQ is answering how the question works based on the rules, which is how it is stated. If you have a problem with how it works (which is perfectly fine), then you're looking to errata the rules as written. The frequently asked question has been addressed within the rules themselves.

[Math Mathonwy]

Just going to go out on a limb and say a ghost walking through a wall probably does end a melee fight.

As long as it remembers to stop right at the other side of the wall before moving on

[Lucidicide]

As long as it remembers to stop right at the other side of the wall before moving on

 

Duh. Phasing through things is hard work!

[jonahmaul]

 

Rather, what's being suggested is that you get to take a disengaging strike when a model tries to leave THAT PART OF YOUR ENGAGEMENT RANGE TO WHICH YOU HAVE LINE OF SIGHT, even if the place they are moving to, out of your Line of Sight, is still within your Engagement Range. All Disengaging Strikes happen at the moment of declaring movement, so while the moving model is still within Line of Sight.

This is basically exactly what I was going to write!  Deleted the rest to reduce the length of quote but agree completely with everything being said.  It's much more counter-intuitive that you cannot hit something that you can already see before it leaves your LoS.  Whilst it makes some sort of sense if you are engaged with more than one model (if Lenny was trying to smash me in the head with a log I'd probably  be too distracted to notice the tiny female gremlin running away) but it makes no sense that I could be looking directly at somebody then they could move behind the corner of a building and I'd just forget all about them!

 

But whatever.  A ruling has been made and Malifaux is full of abstractions and crazy stuff so I'll live with it.

[Dassenkop]

Just going to go out on a limb and say a ghost walking through a wall probably does end a melee fight.

Would that be the case if the incorporeal model also walks out of (theoretical) engagement range? .... i.e. no disengaging strike?

 

Would these situations also apply to a model flying over the wall? And what if wall is ht1 but model is ht2?

 

Or am I missing something?

[Lysis]

The key ingredients here are a) breaking line of sight and not leaving engagement range.

 

Your example with the wall doesn't break line of sight, so your opponent would still get a disengaging strike

 

Walking out of engagement range, with any model, provokes a disengaging strike (unless special rules apply on the card).

[Adran]

You know what just struck me was how does this all interact with the Lady J upgrade that prevents models leaving her engagement.

But I don't have the exact wording to hand.

 

Anyone have it?

[Dirial]

Pursuit of Justice:

 

Enemy models may not take Walk Actions that would leave this model's engagement range while engaged with this model.