Disengaging from two or more models

[Bengt]

Page 44 says "To resolve a disengaging strike, the enemy models that are engaged with the moving model may choose to take a free Attack Action with any one Close ( ) Attack which the disengaging model is within range of."

 

So if you are engage with several (Wicked) models and you try to leave the engagement range of all of them with the same Walk Action, do you:

 

A. The inactive player makes one strike with each model in range, one after the other, until one has hit or everyone has missed.

B. The inactive player makes one strike with every model regardless of any of them has already hit.

C. The inactive player selects a single model to make a strike (note the use of plural and singular in the rules quote).

 

[Myyrä]

Did you notice that the strike doesn't have to be made against the model that is trying to take the walk action, and the walking fails if the attack hits?

[Bengt]

Did you notice that the strike doesn't have to be made against the model that is trying to take the walk action, and the walking fails if the attack hits?

Even if it isn't stated outright I think it's very clear that the intent is that the attack only can be made against the walking model.

[Myyrä]

My answer for the original question would B in theory A in practice, unless it is highly important for some reason to resolve all the attacks.

There are multiple models making the choice of taking that attack action. It would be weird if the intent was that they collectively choose only one attack action.

[solkan]

Page 44 says "To resolve a disengaging strike, the enemy models that are engaged with the moving model may choose to take a free Attack Action with any one Close ( ) Attack which the disengaging model is within range of."

 

So if you are engage with several (Wicked) models and you try to leave the engagement range of all of them with the same Walk Action, do you:

 

A. The inactive player makes one strike with each model in range, one after the other, until one has hit or everyone has missed.

B. The inactive player makes one strike with every model regardless of any of them has already hit.

C. The inactive player selects a single model to make a strike (note the use of plural and singular in the rules quote).

 

For "C"'s "note the use of plural and singular in the rules quote", for the benefit of the record and scientific understanding, please explain how come to that hypothesis.

 

See also "Two individuals post a response to your thread."  Which one of us clicked the "Post" button, and why are there two responses?

[Bengt]

For "C"'s "note the use of plural and singular in the rules quote", for the benefit of the record and scientific understanding, please explain how come to that hypothesis.

 

See also "Two individuals post a response to your thread."  Which one of us clicked the "Post" button, and why are there two responses?

I hadn't thought about it until yesterday, but as written the rules could mean that the collective get a single chance to stop the walk. And even though it's not very common I've come across similar constructs in other games where you only pick your best option so it didn't seem unfathomable that it was supposed work that way. Add to that that I think if every model definitely got their own strike it could be stated clearer.

 

My answer for the original question would B in theory A in practice, unless it is highly important for some reason to resolve all the attacks.

Whether it's A or B is interesting in a Wicked situation, more so if Obey is involved. It's also matters for card cycling, e.g. if the black joker is already in your discard pile it is not to your benefit to shuffle prematurely. So I think one should consistently burn cards that are supposed to have been flipped even if the outcome is a given.

[Jeebus]

it also doesnt say that the disengaging model has to actually disengage all the models for them to get their strikes. It just takes one. IF the disengaging model were to move in such a way that it were to disengage one model but not another (due to melee ranges and placement scenarios) they would both make a strike, right? I mean I guess it wouldn't really come up that often because you announce that you are disengaging before you actually move . . . . 

[Kadeton]

When the model declares it is leaving engagement with a Walk action, all the models engaging it can choose to make disengage strikes. That would mean:

• If there were several engaging Wicked models, they would all be allowed to attack;
• If the non-active player wanted to cycle cards, they could keep making strikes until all models had swung, even if the Walk action had already been prevented;
• If the non-active player didn't want to cycle cards (but did want to stop the Walk), they could stop making strikes as soon as one engaging model hit.

 

IF the disengaging model were to move in such a way that it were to disengage one model but not another (due to melee ranges and placement scenarios) they would both make a strike, right? I mean I guess it wouldn't really come up that often because you announce that you are disengaging before you actually move . . . . 

 

When you declare the Walk, you declare your intention to leave each model's melee range. If you were engaged by two models, you could declare that you were leaving the melee range of the first but not the second, and only the first model would get to make a disengaging strike. If it missed, the moving model must stay within the second model's melee range.

[Bengt]

When the model declares it is leaving engagement with a Walk action, all the models engaging it can choose to make disengage strikes. That would mean:

• If there were several engaging Wicked models, they would all be allowed to attack;
• If the non-active player wanted to cycle cards, they could keep making strikes until all models had swung, even if the Walk action had already been prevented;
• If the non-active player didn't want to cycle cards (but did want to stop the Walk), they could stop making strikes as soon as one engaging model hit.

So in your opinion the inactive player do not need to declare which models are planing to make disengaging strikes before starting to flip cards?

[Kadeton]

That's my opinion, yes. You could certainly play it with pre-declaration if you preferred, but I can't think of any other examples of simultaneous independent actions which require it.

[Tuttleboy]

Did you notice that the strike doesn't have to be made against the model that is trying to take the walk action, and the walking fails if the attack hits?

Sometimes the rules in games assume that you can make an intuitive leap. This is one of those times. This part of the rule book is talking about disengaging strikes and never mentions any model not engaged by an enemy. You are absolutely correct in the whole RAW bs argument, but t is just that. BS.

I've not yet come across a game that has lots of RAW vs RAI arguments, but Malifaux is very close to being that game. Rules forums don't need a Devil's Advocate and it would be super awesome if you could stop being that guy, because yo seem to have an excellent grasp of how the game works.

[zFiend]

Sometimes the rules in games assume that you can make an intuitive leap. This is one of those times. This part of the rule book is talking about disengaging strikes and never mentions any model not engaged by an enemy. You are absolutely correct in the whole RAW bs argument, but t is just that. BS.

I've not yet come across a game that has lots of RAW vs RAI arguments, but Malifaux is very close to being that game. Rules forums don't need a Devil's Advocate and it would be super awesome if you could stop being that guy, because yo seem to have an excellent grasp of how the game works.

 

If I remember correctly it's against the forum rules to play the devil's advocate as well?

[Myyrä]

Sometimes the rules in games assume that you can make an intuitive leap. This is one of those times. This part of the rule book is talking about disengaging strikes and never mentions any model not engaged by an enemy. You are absolutely correct in the whole RAW bs argument, but t is just that. BS.

I've not yet come across a game that has lots of RAW vs RAI arguments, but Malifaux is very close to being that game. Rules forums don't need a Devil's Advocate and it would be super awesome if you could stop being that guy, because yo seem to have an excellent grasp of how the game works.

I'm completely aware that it is BS. I have no intention whatsoever to argue about it. I thought it merely a funny anecdote, but maybe I should not have posted it.

[jonahmaul]

Page 44 says "To resolve a disengaging strike, the enemy models that are engaged with the moving model may choose to take a free Attack Action with any one Close ( ) Attack which the disengaging model is within range of."

 

So if you are engage with several (Wicked) models and you try to leave the engagement range of all of them with the same Walk Action, do you:

 

A. The inactive player makes one strike with each model in range, one after the other, until one has hit or everyone has missed.

B. The inactive player makes one strike with every model regardless of any of them has already hit.

C. The inactive player selects a single model to make a strike (note the use of plural and singular in the rules quote).

It would be either A or B because the rules says that enemy models 'may' take disengaging strike.  I think it would be the non-active players choice although personally I think that you should choose which models are going to make the strikes before flipping the cards.

[zFiend]

We have always played it as A.

[Adran]

I have no rules justification but play a version of A

I declare which models are going to make disengaging strikes, and then proced to make the strikes until one suceeds. I then stop making duels.

 

(actually, from a rules justification once I suceed with one of the attacks, there is no more walk action?).

 

But I've not yet ever seen a model disangage from more than 1 wicked model at a time. (I can't actually think one attempting to diosengage from 1 wicked model to be honest)

[Myyrä]

There are actually two slight variations to situation B (or A or whatever), and I think it's important to make the distinction here, if we are going to discuss this further.

B1) The attacker has the opportunity to make a disengaging strike with all the models, regardless of whether the attacks hit or not.

B2) The attacker has to make a disengaging strike with all the models he declared, regardless of whether the attacks hit or not.

I myself am pretty sure, that B1 holds true, but I'm not all that confident about B2. B2 would imply that all the disengaging strikes should be "chosen" to be taken at the same time. The attacks obviously won't resolved simultaneously. Looking at the text in the rulebook I would say that there is nothing clearly pointing that the choice to make the attacks should be done at the same time either. (Not that there much to point to the contrary either.)