Yet Another Thread About Disengaging

[Masque]

Don't worry, this is actually a different question. If a model is engaged with two enemies and intends to walk away from both of them do they each make a strike or only one of them? Please explain your reasoning.

[Csonti]

Both of them. Reason: rules state explicitly this.

[Masque]

Both of them. Reason: rules state explicitly this.

OK, I'll bite. Where do the rules say this explicitly?

[Ausplosions]

Page 44.

Under Disengaging.

It uses models, plural.

[Masque]

Here is what I believe to be the pertinent paragraph (with comments by me in red):

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

If you were allowed a strike with each model then why when resolving a single strike do you choose an attack from any of the enemies engaged with the moving model?

[Ausplosions]

Because some models have more than one attack.

Each model in range may use one to try and stop from disengaging.

It's not really up for debate..

This is how it works.

[Carasz]

Here is what I believe to be the pertinent paragraph (with comments by me in red):

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

If you were allowed a strike with each model then why when resolving a single strike do you choose an attack from any of the enemies engaged with the moving model?

It doesn't specify "each enemy model may..." do the attack, but it is kind of understood since there is no mechanic for models to make a strike together. If wyrd intended only one of the (enemy) models to make the disengaging strike, I believe they would have specified that in the text.

Ausplosion, I have to say I like the new direction you've been going in the last few weeks. But please, don't just say "this is how it works", use an argument to prove it. Respond to and refute his argument specifically. It's much more constructive.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Carasz

[sharpobjects]

Here is what I believe to be the pertinent paragraph (with comments by me in red):

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

If you were allowed a strike with each model then why when resolving a single strike do you choose an attack from any of the enemies engaged with the moving model?

Models in this game do not make attack actions collectively. They make them individualy. They each take one free Attack Action with any one Close Attack which the disengaging model is within range of. As explained above, some models have multiple Close Attack Actions and if some or all are in range of the model that is attempting to move out of engaement then they have the ability to choose the one they want to attempt to stop disengagement.

[Ausplosions]

It doesn't specify "each enemy model may..." do the attack, but it is kind of understood since there is no mechanic for models to make a strike together. If wyrd intended only one of the (enemy) models to make the disengaging strike, I believe they would have specified that in the text.

Ausplosion, I have to say I like the new direction you've been going in the last few weeks. But please, don't just say "this is how it works", use an argument to prove it. Respond to and refute his argument specifically. It's much more constructive.

Specifically it says so under disengaging.

[Masque]

I know and understand that some models have more than one to choose from. My point is that it says that to make a single strike multiple models choose a single attack. It does not say that to make a single strike multiple models EACH choose a single attack. The grammar in that sentence from the rules I quoted earlier does not make sense if it means what everyone seems to think it means.

Specifically it says so under disengaging.

It never, ever uses the word "each" in the section about disengaging. If you think I'm wrong, please quote it from the book.

[Mako]

I actually think the paragraph before the one people are debating is the one that tells me it's each model. It states that if you want to leave an enemy model's engagement with a walk you may provoke a disengaging strike from the model you are engaged with.

Thus, if it is engaged with several enemy models, you may provoke a disengaging strike for for being engaged with model 1, and one for being engaged with model 2.

That means that each disengaging strike resolves separately, with model 1 choosing a attack to use, then model 2 choosing a attack to use. Each attack is a single event caused by the interaction between the model that wants to move and a single model that is engaged with it, not a collective group of models that then get to pick one attack between them if you try to disengage with any of them.

Otherwise, you get into a situation where if I'm engaged with two models of Ml 7 and Ml 3, each with a range of 2", and choose to walk close to the Ml 7 model staying in its engagement range but leaving the Ml 3 model's range, I can be attacked by the Ml 7 model to prevent me leaving engagement with the Ml 3 model. This would be due to the strike being classed as a single strike from multiple models, and the models engaged may choose any strike that's in range - hence the Ml 7, who I'm not disengaging from, gets to hit me.

The distinction between one model v a group, or one model v a series of single models, is key here. Each model chooses a disengaging strike individually, not en masse, to my eyes.

[Ausplosions]

I know and understand that some models have more than one to choose from. My point is that it says that to make a single strike multiple models choose a single attack. It does not say that to make a single strike multiple models EACH choose a single attack. The grammar in that sentence from the rules I quoted earlier does not make sense if it means what everyone seems to think it means.

It never, ever uses the word "each" in the section about disengaging. If you think I'm wrong, please quote it from the book.

Okay, cool. Play it like that.

Have fun!

[Carasz]

I actually think the paragraph before the one people are debating is the one that tells me it's each model. It states that if you want to leave an enemy model's engagement with a walk you may provoke a disengaging strike from the model you are engaged with.

Thus, if it is engaged with several enemy models, you may provoke a disengaging strike for for being engaged with model 1, and one for being engaged with model 2.

That means that each disengaging strike resolves separately, with model 1 choosing a attack to use, then model 2 choosing a attack to use. Each attack is a single event caused by the interaction between the model that wants to move and a single model that is engaged with it, not a collective group of models that then get to pick one attack between them if you try to disengage with any of them.

Otherwise, you get into a situation where if I'm engaged with two models of Ml 7 and Ml 3, each with a range of 2", and choose to walk close to the Ml 7 model staying in its engagement range but leaving the Ml 3 model's range, I can be attacked by the Ml 7 model to prevent me leaving engagement with the Ml 3 model. This would be due to the strike being classed as a single strike from multiple models, and the models engaged may choose any strike that's in range - hence the Ml 7, who I'm not disengaging from, gets to hit me.

The distinction between one model v a group, or one model v a series of single models, is key here. Each model chooses a disengaging strike individually, not en masse, to my eyes.

That paragraph, however, never uses any plurals. So the case of multiple models is still up to the reader to interpret.

Also, it says "This may provoke a disengaging strike from the enemy model...". I believe they're written so because some models do not provoke disengaging strikes, but it may be interpreted as "since only one of the engaged models make a disengaging strike, this model may be the model who makes the strike".

I still have to say I'm going to play it as if the word "each" is included in the text. It makes more sense, it follows 1.5 and seems appropriate.

I just have to hope my opponent does not try to rules lawyer me and use the rules as written. Then again, I probably won't want to play against that kind of player many times anyway.

[Ausplosions]

It wouldn't even be rules lawyering. It would be cheating.

And it does say models, plural.

[Carasz]

It wouldn't even be rules lawyering. It would be cheating.

And it does say models, plural.

It seems you still don't want to see my (or OPs) point, but ok. Less fuss for you. However, I'd be grateful if you stated a reason why it's cheating, so that I can use that in case someone tries to make the same point I've done. That is the purpose if this thread, to clear this out.

And the first paragraph doesn't use models in plural. The second paragraph does.

[ArcMaster]

Here is what I believe to be the pertinent paragraph (with comments by me in red):

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

If you were allowed a strike with each model then why when resolving a single strike do you choose an attack from any of the enemies engaged with the moving model?

Let's boil away the parts that don't matter for determining plurality. So it looks more like this.

"Enemy models take a free attack action with any one attack"

So the models are taking an attack action. If we look in the steps for performing an action on we'll find that we only have rules that tell us how to perform an action for a single model at a time, unless these rules specifically allow for multiple models to share the same action. If that is the case how do we resolve models with wicked, attacking together with models that lack wicked?

Overall it's just a rule that needs to be re-worded given other confusion other parts of it have caused. I'm sure it was one of those things the Designers had right in their minds, and was playtested a certain way because that's how people expected it a cerain way, and slipped through the cracks as a result. I'm confident that when they release the first FAQs for the game that they'll cover this.

[Ausplosions]

I hope they don't put this on an FAQ. It's not needed and is clear as is

I don't want the FAQ to be 27 pages long and filled with inane questions.

[Carasz]

I also hope they won't add it to the FAQ, because I don't think it constitutes a frequently asked question. Having it here on the forum suffices.

It's such a small thing that most people will probably read as intended, and not give it a second though.