Disengage vs Horror Duel

[cyenobite]

If a model is engaged with another model that has the Terrifying ability, would they still have to pass a Horror Duel before attempting to disengage? They're trying to walk away (Walk Action), which does not "target" the Terrifying model, yet the disengage is treated like a melee attack, which does target a model.

Thanks!

 

<Edit: I think I just answered my own question... So it seems as though the model attempting to walk away is doing the Walk Action, and it's the OTHER model that then target's the model trying to walk away. So Terrifying would not be an issue when trying to disengage.>

 

Would still appreciate a confirmation on this, that I'm reading it correctly.

[Dracomax]

Assuming I read this right, no, unless they fail to get away.

 

I think what you are saying is that the disengaging model(D) tries to walk away from terrifying Model (T).

T makes a diengaging strike. if that strike does not complete, then no terrifying check needs to take place. However, if T stops D using disengaging, D ends the move. within engagement range of T. So horror duel ensues.

 

However, IF T tries to get away, and D wants to stop them, then D needs to take the horror duel in order to target T for the disengaging strike.

[cyenobite]

Oh - Good point Dracomax, and having the (D) Model do a Terror Check if they fail to disengage. Thanks for that clarification.

[Mako]

Do they end a move though? I thought that disengaging strikes happened when you declared a move, so if you fail you don't actually make a move. The rule says:

 

 

If the attack hits, the model may not perform the walk action, although it must still spend the required AP

 

Which to me says no walk action, so no ending the walk action, so no horror duel if you fail to disengage.

[Dracomax]

See, I have always read that and been under the understanding(and could swear I've heard this from other people on the forums too) that when you fail a disengage, it still counts as having taken the walk action, and so even though you did not move, it still triggered the horror.

 

But now that you have said that, I could see it going the other way.

[Mako]

The only other thread I can see has the 'it happens before the action and stops it occurring' answer too, but it's two posts long so that's not exactly consensus!

 

Oh dear... I hope I haven't started something that will rage back and forth for days...

[dgraz]

I'm with Mako on that side of  it....it's pretty clear that the walk actually never happens.....kinda like the whole 'if a model is in base contact already, can it be Lured' thing......0" move is not a move.....no walk action is not a walk.

 

Also with Draco if T is trying to disengage, then D would have to make the check to make the disengaging strike (though remember that disengaging strikes are not mandatory....you could choose to let the big ugly just walk away).

[The Godlyness]

Moving with the walk action is irrelevant. Did you take a walk action. Did this walk action end with you in the engagement range of a terrifying model. If so take a horror duel.

Only way to provoke a disengaging strike is to take a walk action.

[Godgolden]

For reason Mako brought up, no terror test happens, I dont have a book at hand (at work =D) you dont actually take a wk action, its announced and stopped or announced and you simply move out of melee.

[The Godlyness]

Yay same thing argued a week ago. Schodingers walk action. Did you spend ap. Did you declare the action you are doing. Then the end result is that you took a walk action. And did that walk action end in a terrifying models engagement range? Golly gee wilikers batman it did. I must take a test now.

[Mako]

Firstly, before this goes any further, let's avoid posting things that could be taken as condescending or rude. Civilised debate where people act like they have a vague bit of respect for other's opinions only please.

The rule says you can't perform the action but still spend AP, not that you take a walk but don't move anywhere. I didn't take a walk action to my mind, as I wasn't allowed to perform it. If I did take a walk action but couldn't move, I'd have spent the AP to start that action anyway so why would the rule need to tell me I can't perform it but must still spend the AP?

Is there a statement in the rules that would contradict this? (Genuine question, if there is it will support the 'has taken walk action' side)

[AverageBoss]

Yay same thing argued a week ago. Schodingers walk action. Did you spend ap. Did you declare the action you are doing. Then the end result is that you took a walk action. And did that walk action end in a terrifying models engagement range? Golly gee wilikers batman it did. I must take a test now.

Except the rule book specifically says: "The model may NOT perform the "Walk Action"... "

 

If the Walk Action cannot be performed, then you cannot perform a walk action. If no walk action is performed, you have not performed a walk action. Terror only happens when model end Walk Actions (which cannot be performed if hit by a disengaging strike) within engagement. No Terror Test is taken, because no action was performed. You just spend one AP to do nothing.

[cyenobite]

ugh - apologies for opening this can of worms. It sounds the the issue is the Action Points being spent = a walk vs actual movement = a walk. I tend to side with the later, but can see that both sides have a good argument. 

[The Godlyness]

Performing the walk action is moving the model. To nor perform the action is not moving the model. But a walk action was taken nonetheless

[Icemyn]

I'm confused as to how you got to take a disengaging strike if they didn't take a walk action. 

The rulebook does say that A disengaging strike can only occur from a walk action. 

So either you walked they took a disengaging strike to keep you from moving or they didn't take a walk action and you never took a disengaging strike. 

 

Seems simple enough. 

[The Godlyness]

Except the rule book specifically says: "The model may NOT perform the "Walk Action"... "

If the Walk Action cannot be performed, then you cannot perform a walk action. If no walk action is performed, you have not performed a walk action. Terror only happens when model end Walk Actions (which cannot be performed if hit by a disengaging strike) within engagement. No Terror Test is taken, because no action was performed. You just spend one AP to do nothing.

Not doing an action is not the same as not taking one. For the opponent to even get a chance to use a disengaging strike is you try to walk away using the Walk Action. And if that Walk Action ends because it can't be performed then a test must be made. Terrifying does not care if you moved at all only if the end result is a walk action was taken and ended in its engagement range.

Edit I think I just got ninja'd

[Adran]

If I declare I'm taking a walk action, my opponent is allowed to respond with a disengaging strike.

If the disengaging strike hits, I am not allowed to take the walk action, although I have to spend the AP.  Page 48 of the little book

 

Therefore I have declared that I intend to take one, but was unable to take one, and because I couldn't take a walk action, I haven't ended a walk action, so horrifying does not occur.

[dgraz]

ugh - apologies for opening this can of worms. It sounds the the issue is the Action Points being spent = a walk vs actual movement = a walk. I tend to side with the later, but can see that both sides have a good argument. 

Not your fault that people can be extreme.

[Clement]

Performing the walk action is moving the model. To nor perform the action is not moving the model. But a walk action was taken nonetheless

I think the core question is "does not performing a walk action still mean you took it?". If yes, then a walk action was taken that ended inside the engagement range and terror happens. If no, then the AP is just gone and no terror check.

[AverageBoss]

I'm confused as to how you got to take a disengaging strike if they didn't take a walk action. 

The rulebook does say that A disengaging strike can only occur from a walk action. 

So either you walked they took a disengaging strike to keep you from moving or they didn't take a walk action and you never took a disengaging strike. 

 

Seems simple enough. 

 

You declare that you want to perform a walk action first. If the disengaging strike hits you, you may not perform the walk action and instead simply spend an AP on you wasted efforts. Says so right on page 44, column 2, of the big rule book.

 

 

Performing the walk action is moving the model. To nor perform the action is not moving the model. But a walk action was taken nonetheless

 

How do you take a walk action and not take a walk action at the same time? You can declare a Walk Action and not move. In this case you have still performed a Walk Action. That is not the case with Disengaging Strikes as in that case the model is barred from taking the action entirely.

The rules for successful for disengaging strikes do not say "the model may not walk", the rule says "the model does not perform the walk action".

[Icemyn]

If I declare I'm taking a walk action, my opponent is allowed to respond with a disengaging strike.

If the disengaging strike hits, I am not allowed to take the walk action, although I have to spend the AP.  Page 48 of the little book

 

Therefore I have declared that I intend to take one, but was unable to take one, and because I couldn't take a walk action, I haven't ended a walk action, so horrifying does not occur.

So we agree that you declared a walk action thus starting it, you just think that it doesn't end? Fair enough.

[Icemyn]

You declare that you want to perform a walk action first. If the disengaging strike hits you, you may not perform the walk action and instead simply spend an AP on you wasted efforts. Says so right on page 44, column 2, of the big rule book.

I don't know that intent to declare an action is a rules term, but I certainly take your meaning. I could certainly see this ending up being the case. 

[Mako]

You know what? This went south faster than I expected, so here's my final comment:

 

If someone is posting things you thing are rude, offensive, or such, then report it. Responding in kind is not appropriate and will get you in at least as much trouble for escalating the situation.

 

One more snide shot at another person and this thread ends.

[The Godlyness]

What we have here is two rules in the rulebook conflicting then. Only way for a disengaging strike to happen is from a walk action. But the walk action is not performed by the disengaging strike therefore the disengaging strike can never happen since a walk action was not taken.

What a sweet paradox.

Or the action is taken and is ended. Which in that case the rules work.

[AverageBoss]

I see that now myself. No wonder there is disagreement.

 

Specifically the last sentance of paragraph 1 and the first sentance of paragraph 3 are what conflict with each other.

[dgraz]

I'm not sure I agree that the conflict is that the strike can only be made by Walk actions, the strike happens after you declare the Walk action but before you take it.