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]

Pursuit of Justice:

 

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

 

You can do just the same. Leave LoS, leave Engagement. 

[Dirial]

I don't like that upgrade much. It mostly doesn't do anything. Like Flames of the Pit. Justice's upgrades aren't that great all in all.

[zFiend]

I don't like that upgrade much. It mostly doesn't do anything. Like Flames of the Pit. Justice's upgrades aren't that great all in all.

 

I've never used it nor will I ever use it.

[jonahmaul]

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

But with the current Errata you could fly over a 2" wall and then break LoS and trundle off with your next AP.

[Adran]

But with the current Errata you could fly over a 2" wall and then break LoS and trundle off with your next AP.

 

Thats the thing.

This ruling is exactly what the rules state. To get a different rule would need an errata. It might seem strange, but it is what is actually written in the rule book.

I guess the question is the slightly strange loopholes people have now spotted worth actualy issuing an errata.

[Dirial]

I guess the question is the slightly strange loopholes people have now spotted worth actualy issuing an errata.

 

Don't think so. Just some getting used to.

[Dante42]

Sorry I opened a can of worms, but I appreciate the timely FAQ update to clear this up.

[Math Mathonwy]

As an anecdote, I have been thinking that this works like the FAQ says (since its RAW) the whole time and I have yet to find a time where I wanted to do it. Now, I think that it is a bigger boost to Incorporeal models and I haven't been using those all that much so there is that but still, I doubt that it will be a common maneuver.

[zFiend]

As an anecdote, I have been thinking that this works like the FAQ says (since its RAW) the whole time and I have yet to find a time where I wanted to do it. Now, I think that it is a bigger boost to Incorporeal models and I haven't been using those all that much so there is that but still, I doubt that it will be a common maneuver.

I agree. It won't probably be seen all that often really.

[Dirial]

Ah, zFiend comes to back me up.

 

Although it's really Math who makes me feel like my gut feeling was justified. Sorry man.

[zFiend]

Although it's really Math who makes me feel like my gut feeling was justified. Sorry man.

My heart hurts.

[Dirial]

My heart hurts.

 

You don't have a heart.

[zFiend]

You don't have a heart.

Oh right.

[zFiend]

You don't have a heart.

Oh right.

[lusciousmccabe]

^^ He does, it just didn't belong to him originally.

[phloog]

Okay, incredibly new and this may have been answered, but I'm confused.

 

IF a model has an engagement range of 3", and is positioned so that this range overlaps some 'feature' that could block LOS, then a target could walk to that feature, out of LOS, and be safe from a disengaging strike?  Is the point that the move all occurs within that range and therefore the target is safe?

 

But what if a model is in the same position, enemy as well, and only has a 1" engagement range.... when the target leaves 1" toward the feature, the attack is allowed, right, as they walked out of the range...?

 

So in this case you're penalized for being able to strike at a longer range, because your longer range engulfs blocking 'features'?

 

I'm not sure if I'm confused because I don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense.  At no point in my thinking should a smaller range be better than a larger range.

 

Edit:  probably needs a visual, but imagine that the 'feature' - wall, tree, giant person... is 2.5 inches away from two models in base to base contact.  With a 3" range, the 'target' can escape behind the feature because they never left the range until they were out of LOS.  But with a 1" range as soon as the target moves outside that 1" bam.

[Dirial]

Okay, incredibly new and this may have been answered, but I'm confused.

IF a model has an engagement range of 3", and is positioned so that this range overlaps some 'feature' that could block LOS, then a target could walk to that feature, out of LOS, and be safe from a disengaging strike? Is the point that the move all occurs within that range and therefore the target is safe?

But what if a model is in the same position, enemy as well, and only has a 1" engagement range.... when the target leaves 1" toward the feature, the attack is allowed, right, as they walked out of the range...?

So in this case you're penalized for being able to strike at a longer range, because your longer range engulfs blocking 'features'?

I'm not sure if I'm confused because I don't understand it or because it doesn't make sense. At no point in my thinking should a smaller range be better than a larger range.

Edit: probably needs a visual, but imagine that the 'feature' - wall, tree, giant person... is 2.5 inches away from two models in base to base contact. With a 3" range, the 'target' can escape behind the feature because they never left the range until they were out of LOS. But with a 1" range as soon as the target moves outside that 1" bam.

Your interpretation is correct, altjough I don't get why a longer range shouldn't be allowed to have some disadvantage...

Also note that you cannot simply walk out with the first AP. You'd need two for this maneuver.

[phloog]

I don't think there should never be a disadvantage to a large range, I just don't think that this particular disadvantage makes sense when I think about it.

 

Presumably a bigger range means "you are a threat to things up to this far away"... this ruling seems to build a weird "attack negation field" in this comparison. 

 

But it doesn't break the game for me, and I guess it's no stranger than the mechanism of the move being important (push vs. walk)

[Dirial]

It's not really a disadvantage either. Models with shorter range couldn't attack that far in the first place. It's just that in this very specific situation, the larger range doesn't grant it's usual advantage.

[phloog]

Thanks... I do want to make sure I understand, though, because it SOUNDS to me quirkier than the last couple posts seem to indicate.  Realizing most are bored already, I hope you won't mind if I make sure I get this.

 

Scenario 1: Model A has 3" mêlée range, and is (admittedly corner case) BASE to BASE with Model B.  A LOS blocking item/creature/thingie is positioned just over two inches away.

 

Scenario 2: Model A has 1" mêlée range, and is (admittedly corner case) BASE to BASE with Model B. A LOS blocking item/creature/thingie is positioned just over two inches away... identical but for the range.

 

Model B walks to behind the LOS blocking feature.

 

In Scenario1: Model B successfully walks to behind the LOS-blocker.  Model A gets no opportunity to stop this, even when Model B moves out of engagement range because it does this outside of LOS.

 

In Scenario2: Model B tries to walk to behind the feature, but Model A gets to attempt the disengaging strike because before it gets outside of LOS it has to exit the 1" range.

 

So when you say the shorter ranged model couldn't attack that far in the first place..true, but in the case of disengaging, the short ranged model gets a strike at the 1" point, doesn't it.  You're right that it couldn't attack out to the full distance walked, but it gets a strike when the longer ranged model does not.  Longer range not only doesn't grant its advantage, but you lose a disengaging strike because of the ruling.

[StuffedKiwi]

For Scenario 2, yes, you're right -- Model A gets to attempt a disengaging strike before Model B moves, at the moment when it is declared that Model B will be moving outside of the engagement range of Model A

 

For Scenario 1, not quite. If Model B takes 1AP to move behind the obstacle, while remaining within the 3 inch range of Model A, then it has not left the engagement range of Model A, so no disengaging strike. If it then uses another AP to move out of engagement range, Model A does not get to make a disengaging strike, because Model A has no LoS to Model B to make such an attack.

If Model B declared an intention to move outside of Model A's Engagement Range in 1AP from the starting position, though, even if the place it was moving to was behind the LoS-blocking terrain, then Model A WOULD get to make a disengaging strike before Model B moved.

Hope that clarifies.

 

There are indeed disadvantages to a longer melee range, among the most prominent being that if you're engaged you can't take interact actions -- even if the model you're engaged with is right at the edge of your engagement range, and has a much smaller engagement range. And given that the game is more often won or lost by interactions than by killings, that's definitely worth keeping in mind.

[Dassenkop]

Just trying to keep up and getting to grips with this ... I'm not sure I fully grasp the latest comments so is a model that is out of Line of Sight but within engagement range still 'engaged' and therefore limited in the amount of actions it can do? I understand it is but not sure tbh.

 

Also if it is 'engaged' in this situation would you have to randomize targets when being at?

[Ausplosions]

Just trying to keep up and getting to grips with this ... I'm not sure I fully grasp the latest comments so is a model that is out of Line of Sight but within engagement range still 'engaged' and therefore limited in the amount of actions it can do? I understand it is but not sure tbh.

Also if it is 'engaged' in this situation would you have to randomize targets when being at?

It is not engaged.

[Dirial]

It is not engaged.

 

Yep. It's not.

[Myyrä]

Models are engaged if at least one of them is within the other's engagement range and at least one of the models can draw LoS to the other.