Disengaging strikes, or rather avoiding them

[Rob Lo]

Say I'm playing Seamus, with his Bag o' Tools, which gives him a 2" engagement range. He's in base contact with a Rotten Belle, and another enemy model, lets say a witchling stalker, is nearby, within both Seamus' and the Belle's engagement range.

Could that Stalker, when he activates, walk 'behind' the Belle, all the while staying within Seamus 2" range, until he was right behind the Belle, thus out of Seamus' line of sight, and then walk straight away from Seamus, all of this maneuvering done to avoid the disengaging strike from Seamus (and only having to deal with the strike from the Belle if he kept walking out of her range)? Would it be any different if he walked directly behind the Belle and stopped right there, staying within Seamus' 2" circle?

After looking over Engagements and Disengaging on pg 44, and also because I have a growing hatred of Witchling Stalkers, I assume the stalker has to declare he's trying to move out of engagement no matter if he stops or keeps walking away, but my buddy and I have to have something to talk about at work, and as this was a thing in our last game, I thought I'd ask.

Feel free to point out exactly how horrible Witchling Stalkers, and Sonnia's crew in general, are.

Thanks Malifaux-ites.. Malifauvians? Malifauxers? Okay, I might need a ruling on this one too.

[Sklertic]

Since LoS is required for you to be engaged in a fight with someone I would say it's a legal move, and the stalker would only suffer the disengaging strike from the belle.

Declaring to move out of melee range is done before any movement is done however, so he had to be out of sight first.

And as a sidenote: Sonnias crew is awesome!

[dgraz]

I think not. I agree that LoS is needed to be engaged............however, as soon as he moves out of LoS, he would be out of engagement.........so if the intent of the move is to get out of Seamus' LoS, Seamus would take an immediate Disengaging Strike.

Any other way of looking at this would just be trying to game the system and I'd be offended if someone tried that on me.

[zFiend]

I think not. I agree that LoS is needed to be engaged............however, as soon as he moves out of LoS, he would be out of engagement.........so if the intent of the move is to get out of Seamus' LoS, Seamus would take an immediate Disengaging Strike.

Any other way of looking at this would just be trying to game the system and I'd be offended if someone tried that on me.

I'd say this.

[Uktena]

Only Witchling Stalkers are able to disengage like your friend describes. And only if led by Sonnia. Specifically only Witchling Stalkers led by Sonnia when played by your friend.

Sonnia is the best.

[Coweringomega]

In the same vein, if an engaged character was incorporeal and floated through a wall, still within the engagement range, does this activate a disengaging strike?

When reading the rule, I've always interpreted it to be based on attack range, so I would have thought that staying within attack range, but somehow breaking LoS would be legal. However, if the engagement also includes LoS, then perhaps I was wrong. At some point I had read on the boards that the incorporeal situation cited above would be a legal way to escape, but that may have been 1.5.

Upon reflection, I suppose that since you are supposed to take the disengaging strike before any movement, it seems reasonable that the intent to break the engagement should initiate the strike either through moving out of attack range or breaking LoS. If your move will result in some sort of disengagement, then the opponent gets a chance to stop you through the disengaging strike.

[Rob Lo]

The picture at the bottom of pg. 44 leads me to think the engagement range does extend behind other models. Going off that, hiding behind the Belle doesn't take the Stalker out of Seamus' engagement, so if he did walk further away, he's take the strike from Seamus.

All of the various bits on page 44 lead me to think that moving out of LoS is moving out of engagement (much of it is written as if it's the understood default), but nothing ever specifically says it, and a few bits (very first sentence, picture at the bottom) go against that.

[dgraz]

However, if the engagement also includes LoS, then perhaps I was wrong.

Pg 44, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Engagements,

Models are engaged with each other if either model is within the engagement range of the other and at least one of the models has LoS to the other.

[Coweringomega]

Sorry dgraz, I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

Under "Disengaging", the first sentence says,

If a model wishes to leave an enemy model's engagement range with a walk action....

Note is says engagement range. In the section prior (Engagements), it says,

Every model has an "engagement range" equal to the distance of it's longest range Close () attack.

Honestly, my interpretation is that as long as I stay within the engagement range, I'm free to break LoS to become unengaged, then move away without procing a disengaging strike.

So I guess I'm flipping on what I said previously.

However, they do note the intent to leave the engagement range with a walk action, not the actual action itself. Even if I plan to move out of the engagement range by slipping out of LoS, that's still my intent so they should get the strike.

However, if I really wanted to get out, perhaps I could just break LoS and stay within the engagement range for my first AP move. That shouldn't initiate the strike because I was still within range. Then with my second AP move, since I'm not engaged, I'm not restricted by that any more and can move out of the range itself.

[dgraz]

Hmmm......I see. I see where the wiggle room is in the RAW........but as I said before, I think I'd call BS if someone tried that on me.

[Coweringomega]

It's strange because the rules seem to clearly define "walking out of engagement range" vs. being engaged, esp. in the 4 bullet points under engagement. I'm not sure what problem was being addressed by that wording, but it does leave the door open for certain kinds of shenanigans.

It would be simpler if the rules simply said, "If the model wishes to become disengaged from an enemy model, either by breaking LoS or by walking out of the engagement range....."

They set up 2 conditions to be engaged, but only one condition to initiate the disengaging strike.

[dgraz]

Agree.

[Rob Lo]

Before I get into any of this, I still say that the first move, where the stalker moves behind the Belle, _should_ qualify as a disengaging strike, because I think that's the spirit of the sum of what's written, and what makes logical sense.

After talking about it some more, it comes down to the difference in the rule book between when they say "engaged" and when they say "engagement range".

The "engagement range" is the circle; in defining it, the book doesn't say anything about the "range" being blocked by anything. "Engaged" only happens if you are in the circle, and have line of sight. There are very distinct times when the rules say "while engaged" vs. when they say "in/leave engagement range". Disengaging strikes happen "if a model wishes to leave an enemy model's engagement range". Nothing specifically written there about 'engaged'. If I'm missing something as written, please tell me.

Different example: Punk Zombie is standing next to a wall. Death Marshall is standing on the opposite side of the wall. Death Marshall announces a move away from the Punk. Are they engaged? No, because no LoS. Is he in the engagement range (and there's subject to disengaging strikes). Yes. (Do I think that makes any sense at all? No). Technically, he could shoot ("*Engaged* models may not take gun attack actions") and could even charge (Models may not charge while *engaged*) without causing disengaging strike (specifically says walk action).

Back to my initial example. Stalker moves behind Belle and stops. Engaged with Seamus after the move? No, again no LoS. In engagement range? Yes. Didn't leave engagement range, so no Strike. On his 2nd AP, Stalker announces a walk directly away from Seamus. Even though not "engaged" with Seamus, he still starts in his "engagement range", and would take the Strike. This is where our difference of opinion is, for the first AP move he says 'didn't leave engagement range, so no strike', and for the 2nd he says 'not engaged, no strike'.

That's a whole lot of words for me saying "I can see your wiggle room, but if we're going to word lawyer, let's do it for the whole sequence of events". It's something I wouldn't attempt. That stalker started his turn fighting Seamus, and during some point of his attempt to leave, he's got to take a Strike, no matter how you position it or who you hide behind, in my opinion.

[The Godlyness]

So RAW mourne is right. Now this opens shennaigans for things that are wicked. punk zombie is behind a wall razorspine rattler other side neither has los to each other, punk zombie fails at walking away now takes damage. Clearly seems legit.

[Coweringomega]

At this point, I'm arguing RAW and not RAI. Having said that....

My interpretation is that you HAVE to make the assumption that to qualify for a disengaging strike, you need to be engaged first (range and LoS). Just because you are leaving a model's engagement range has no bearing on if you were engaged or not (ie, the wall example). Thus, while yes, you are leaving the range, since you weren't engaged in the first place, this disqualifies the chance for a disengaging strike.

If you can make the assumption (which I think is safe) that you have to be first engaged to qualify as a target for disengaging strikes, this obviates the wall examples. However, it does set up the scenario where a model can jump out of LoS while still in engagement range, thus effectively disengage without activating a disengaging strike.

[Daxxil]

Doesn't the act of moving out of LOS then require you to be leaving the engagement and thus allow for a disengaging strike?

[Coweringomega]

The RAW only state intent to move out of the engagement range, not intent to break engagement.

[Clement]

Don't have a book with me, but disengaging strikes do require LOS, which the snake-in-the-wall example lacks. Don't they?

[WildRacoon]

No where in Disengaging does it say Line of Sight is require. It just says when you want to move out of an enemy's engagement range with a walk action. So either you can run RAW, which makes no sense or you can run in the most logical way. The logical way is when a model wants to leave an engagement, you have to disengage. Other wise, RAW, no line is required to do disengaging strikes.

[MrDeathTrout]

Is there a special ability I'm missing here? I don't see any wiggle room. Under disengaging is it says if you wish to move out of the the engagement range you must declare it before moving, enemy models that are engaged (which requires LOS) may take a free attack action. If the attack is successful the model may not perform the Walk action. It seems very clear that Seamus's attack would occur before the Witchling Stalker could move behind the Belle, and so would either not move at all or would be free to leave Seamus's range.

If the Stalker took two actions, one to move behind the Belle (no leaving Seamus's or the Belle's engagment range) then there would be no free attack. If he was then out of LOS to Seamus the Stalker could take a second action to leave Seamus's range (but not the Belle's) without any free strikes since without LOS they are not engaged and only engaged models can take the free strikes.

[Rob Lo]

Interesting all the different feedback on how to interpret this.

It seems very clear that Seamus's attack would occur before the Witchling Stalker could move behind the Belle, and so would either not move at all or would be free to leave Seamus's range.

If the Stalker took two actions, one to move behind the Belle (no leaving Seamus's or the Belle's engagment range) then there would be no free attack. If he was then out of LOS to Seamus the Stalker could take a second action to leave Seamus's range (but not the Belle's) without any free strikes since without LOS they are not engaged and only engaged models can take the free strikes.

In the end, I think that's how it falls out for me, you can't sneak out without a Strike in one AP, but you can in two, if another model or some terrain is involved. I guess I lean slightly more towards thinking this is cheesy than smart rulesmanship, at this point I'm mostly just curious if the intent of the rules was to allow an "out" (at the cost of an extra AP of movement) to get away from a disengaging strike. Also if there was meant to be a specific difference between "in engagement range" and "engaged". How a model gets away at all, using Moves only, without a Strike just seems wrong to me.

[MrDeathTrout]

Agreed.

I do see some wiggle room on my second example. And I am curious if the two-move sneak out is what the rules intended. I think that is probably the way we will play it. IMHO its not broken for a model gives up its entire activation to get unengaged from one model.

One other thing to consider. Assume it is decided that moving out of LOS (even while 2" of Seamus) does trigger disengagement strikes. That means if the Stalker just wanted to reposition to the other side of Seamus while staying engaged he would be subject to disengagement strikes for the fraction of the move while he passed around the Belle. This assumes he could not go around the way for some reason, Seamus probably has a Belle on each arm . I'm not sure if that is what the rules intended either.

[Coweringomega]

Agreed.

I do see some wiggle room on my second example. And I am curious if the two-move sneak out is what the rules intended. I think that is probably the way we will play it. IMHO its not broken for a model gives up its entire activation to get unengaged from one model.

One other thing to consider. Assume it is decided that moving out of LOS (even while 2" of Seamus) does trigger disengagement strikes. That means if the Stalker just wanted to reposition to the other side of Seamus while staying engaged he would be subject to disengagement strikes for the fraction of the move while he passed around the Belle. This assumes he could not go around the way for some reason, Seamus probably has a Belle on each arm . I'm not sure if that is what the rules intended either.

In fact, this was the EXACT situation that we ran across. I was moving my stalker around the belle to get to something else on the other side of the conflict. We realized that I breaking the engagement for a short time, but not leaving the range. Thus, we didn't perform disengaging strikes, but it did bring up the possibility that I could have stopped, then slip back in my next move, thus initiating this entire conversation.