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.

[The Godlyness]

I do I found it quite funny lol. I am never insulted by people's comments. So I ask mako if some one says snide/rude things referencing me let it be. I will never report or be upset.

Wish I could quote the rule verbatim that says disengaging strikes can only happen if a walk action blah blah. But I don't have exact wording.

[Ratty]

I think it's possible to Declare the intention to make a Walk Action and then not take that Walk Action. I don't think the Declaration is part of the actual Action.

[AverageBoss]

The conflict comes from these two sentances in succession:

 

"Only Walk Action provoke Disengaging Strikes..."

 

"...model may not perform the Walk Action..."

 

So the strike prevents the action that is nessecary to trigger it in the first place implying that it happened before but can't happen after at the same time.

 

This is the source of all the conflict.

[The Godlyness]

Super paradox win.

So either the Walk Action happens and then since it can't be performed is ended. And the rules then work or paradox. I choose working rules over insanity. (I really wanted to choose paradox to.)

[Mako]

I think it's possible to Declare the intention to make a Walk Action and then not take that Walk Action. I don't think the Declaration is part of the actual Action.

 

This is how I see it, which isn't a paradox so much as an interrupt that can cause it to terminate early, before it actually happens. Like cutting the ignition wires on a car when someone declares they're going to start it. The engine doesn't ever turn over.

 

But, having had someone state the rule the other viewpoint is working from, I can see their argument more clearly.

[HalcyonSeraph]

There's no time paradox here, people. Pre-emptive actions that interrupt are a thing in lots of games. 

 

My opinion: Declaring a Walk is what prompts the Disenaging Strike. If it hits, you don't take a Walk action. You declared one, but you never got to take it. You thus do not end a Walk action in range and do not have to take a Horror Check. 

[The Godlyness]

But that contradicts the rule book. If you never take the action how do I make a disengaging strike. Also How can you not perform a walk action if you never took one? Ok ad nauseam has happened won't post any more unless other people blatantly don't read the thread. Not a jab at anyone just making a general statement. Don't want to be misconstrued.

[AverageBoss]

There's no time paradox here, people. Pre-emptive actions that interrupt are a thing in lots of games. 

 

My opinion: Declaring a Walk is what prompts the Disenaging Strike. If it hits, you don't take a Walk action. You declared one, but you never got to take it. You thus do not end a Walk action in range and do not have to take a Horror Check. 

I agree that this is how it should be played.

 

However the last sentence of the first parapraph says "Only Walk Action provoke Disengaging Strikes...". This contradicts the declarative remark of the first sentance (as it specificaly says walk action and not the declaration of a walk action), and creates a problem with the third paragraph. It is the whole reason there is an opposing view.

 

As it appears to be the only sentence creating multiple conflicts, I think feel it is the outlier.

[dgraz]

I agree that this is how it should be played.

 

However the last sentence of the first parapraph says "Only Walk Action provoke Disengaging Strikes...". This contradicts the declarative remark of the first sentance (as it specificaly says walk action and not the declaration of a walk action), and creates a problem with the third paragraph. It is the whole reason there is an opposing view.

 

As it appears to be the only sentence creating multiple conflicts, I think feel it is the outlier.

So that second line should say 'only DECLARING a Walk Action provokes..."?

 

That's the hang up on all this? Really?

[AverageBoss]

So that second line should say 'only DECLARING a Walk Action provokes..."?

 

That's the hang up on all this? Really?

More or less. Classic RAW vs. RAI arguement.

[rgarbonzo]

I agree that this is how it should be played.

 

However the last sentence of the first parapraph says "Only Walk Action provoke Disengaging Strikes...". This contradicts the declarative remark of the first sentance (as it specificaly says walk action and not the declaration of a walk action), and creates a problem with the third paragraph. It is the whole reason there is an opposing view.

 

As it appears to be the only sentence creating multiple conflicts, I think feel it is the outlier.

 

The reason it is stated that only Walk Actions or the declaration of a Walk action is because there are models that can charge out of engagement to another model, thus getting around disengaging strikes.

[The Godlyness]

Do not add words like intention please. This is muddled enough with out more words. DaDang it just posted. Again

[Mike3838]

"Only walk actions provoke disengaging strikes"

Not written, but I take as implying:

"Other types of movements - pushes, charging, moving your Wk, etc, do not provide disengaging strikes.

To me, *THAT* distinction alone is the purpose of the sentence that is causing all the trouble

[Thaarup]

I am unsure why the line "Only walk actions provoke disengaging strikes" is seen as somehow ruling that an Walk action has to be "in action" (so to speak). The line doesn´t mention anything about when or how, just that this Action has some interaction/relation with the rule term "Disengaging Strikes". The how and when is described in the rest of the text.

 

I think this is a case of over-analysing/thinking of a single sentence. You could easily do that to a lot of random sentences in the rulebook and just twist any meaning of the rules...please don´t go there. 

[Kadeton]

I'm interested in the outcome of this. We've always played it that getting hit by a Disengaging Strike causes a Horror duel for ending your Walk, but I think the argument (rules-wise) is much stronger in the other direction.

 

Since I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about wording, I'll just say that taking the Horror duel has always made sense to me thematically - you tried to run away from the terrifying monster, and it reached out and grabbed you and you couldn't get away. I'd be scared.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I'm interested in the outcome of this. We've always played it that getting hit by a Disengaging Strike causes a Horror duel for ending your Walk, but I think the argument (rules-wise) is much stronger in the other direction.

 

Since I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about wording, I'll just say that taking the Horror duel has always made sense to me thematically - you tried to run away from the terrifying monster, and it reached out and grabbed you and you couldn't get away. I'd be scared.

 

That makes sense to me thematically as well, but then again, it doesn't make sense to me that you can stand next to the scary monster all day as long as you don't attack him or move and be fine. But that change was a good one made for balance, so I'm ok with the sacrifice of a little fluff. 

[Buceph]

Disengaging - Pg. 48 Small Rule Book

 

 

If a model wishes to leave an enemy model's engagement range with a Walk Action, it must declare that it intends to do so before moving.

 

 

So you declare your intention.

 

 

...This may provoke...

 

 

As a response to the declartion, but before the model has moved.

 

 

 

Pg. 49

 

 

If the attack hits, the the disengaging model may not perform the Walk Action although it must still spend the AP.

 

 

So the walk was declared, but not performed. No movement was conducted.

 

Further up the page it confuses things by referring to the model as the

 

 

...moving model....

 

 

Pg. 55 on terrifying.

 

 

...if they end a walk action within this model's activation range...

 

 

So far it comes down to whether the declaration of an action is enough to consitute an action.

 

Pg. 35 has something to say on this.

 

 

The player begins an action by announcing to her opponent what Action the model is taking. This is done for clarity, and because some models might react to certain Actions. [Here disengaging strike is mentioned but nothing is added.]

 

 

So this seems to say that declaring an action is part of the action, "begins an action by..."

 

However, "Terrifying" is given an actual explanation on Pg.55.

 

 

This Ability means that any living model that wishes to move within reach of the Terrifying model, or attack it, must first muster its courage.

 

 

This seems to be saying that if it is moving within reach, walk is to move out of reach. (Taking that "within" here is being used as an adverb(or preposition) and not the description as used by the rules elsewhere.)

 

 

So all of that confuses it.

 

On top of that (and more importantly) I would say the specificity hierarchy with rules is what matters here. Here the rules on disengaging strike are most specific for the immediate situation, the describe the situation best, they are what is most important for the action. That would be that disengaging strike doesn't allow the action to take place. The Terrifying rule is general to movement, the disengaging strike rule about the action not taking place is specific to that precise instance of disengaging strike. I would rule that no terrifying dual takes place. I feel I am supported in the spirit of the rule by the explanation given on Pg.55 explaining the Terrifying rule.

 

It's something that will need to be clarified officially.

[sharpobjects]

I'm interested in the outcome of this. We've always played it that getting hit by a Disengaging Strike causes a Horror duel for ending your Walk, but I think the argument (rules-wise) is much stronger in the other direction.

 

Since I'm not going to get into a semantic argument about wording, I'll just say that taking the Horror duel has always made sense to me thematically - you tried to run away from the terrifying monster, and it reached out and grabbed you and you couldn't get away. I'd be scared.

 

 

I agree this is the way we have always played and now I am starting to think we have been playing it wrong. 

[Ikvar]

I dont know if this is a stretch, but this is from the FAQ:

 

Q: If a model moves (or is Pushed, Falls, is Placed, etc) 0” (zero inches), does it count as having 

moved? 

A: No. Same answer for Pushing, Falling, Placement, etc.

 

The point is that if you move zero inches, it does not count as a move...

[Snakeshit]

I think Ikvar's point is solid. Why did you not post this on page one if this topic

[Adran]

Ikvars point is not really relevant unfortunatly.

I can declare a walk action, take the action and not move at all, I will still end a walk action. This might be relevant to models like Wastrals and Lucius who get other effects at the end of a walk action.

It also matters to horryfying that triggers on a walk action ending in its melee range. Not on a model moving into its melee range using its wk stat.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Actually, no. I'm not commenting at all on the interaction with horror that is the main part of this topic, but if you take and action and get an effective 0 out of it it doesn't count.

If walking 0" still counted has having ended a walk action the belles could still pounce if you moved 0", after all you just ended a move, an Lilith's transfixing gaze would cause dmg and slow to a pushed model that started in b2b with terrain, after all they just ended a push, and bête noir could paralyze an enemy SS user who just prevented all her dmg from her knives, because after all taking 0 dmg is still taking dmg.

The FAQ has clarified that none of that works. In order to count as having done something, you must have done some part of it above 0.

Start in b2b with a belle and get lured for 0", you didn't end a move, so no pounce. Start in b2b with terrain and get transfixing gazed into it, you didn't end a push in b2b with terrain so no dmg and no slow.

Bête does two dmg that the enemy master completely prevents, no triggers that say after dmging, as no dmg was done.

Given precedent I would have to say therefore that if you end a walk 0 action you don't count as having walked. The ap would still be gone, but no effects which happen off ending a walk would go off.

[zFiend]

Actually, no. I'm not commenting at all on the interaction with horror that is the main part of this topic, but if you take and action and get an effective 0 out of it it doesn't count.

If walking 0" still counted has having ended a walk action the belles could still pounce if you moved 0", after all you just ended a move, an Lilith's transfixing gaze would cause dmg and slow to a pushed model that started in b2b with terrain, after all they just ended a push, and bête noir could paralyze an enemy SS user who just prevented all her dmg from her knives, because after all taking 0 dmg is still taking dmg.

The FAQ has clarified that none of that works. In order to count as having done something, you must have done some part of it above 0.

Start in b2b with a belle and get lured for 0", you didn't end a move, so no pounce. Start in b2b with terrain and get transfixing gazed into it, you didn't end a push in b2b with terrain so no dmg and no slow.

Bête does two dmg that the enemy master completely prevents, no triggers that say after dmging, as no dmg was done.

Given precedent I would have to say therefore that if you end a walk 0 action you don't count as having walked. The ap would still be gone, but no effects which happen off ending a walk would go off.

 

I think this is very much spot on.

[Snakeshit]

Me to also

[The Godlyness]

Actually, no. I'm not commenting at all on the interaction with horror that is the main part of this topic, but if you take and action and get an effective 0 out of it it doesn't count.

If walking 0" still counted has having ended a walk action the belles could still pounce if you moved 0", after all you just ended a move, an Lilith's transfixing gaze would cause dmg and slow to a pushed model that started in b2b with terrain, after all they just ended a push, and bête noir could paralyze an enemy SS user who just prevented all her dmg from her knives, because after all taking 0 dmg is still taking dmg.

The FAQ has clarified that none of that works. In order to count as having done something, you must have done some part of it above 0.

Start in b2b with a belle and get lured for 0", you didn't end a move, so no pounce. Start in b2b with terrain and get transfixing gazed into it, you didn't end a push in b2b with terrain so no dmg and no slow.

Bête does two dmg that the enemy master completely prevents, no triggers that say after dmging, as no dmg was done.

Given precedent I would have to say therefore that if you end a walk 0 action you don't count as having walked. The ap would still be gone, but no effects which happen off ending a walk would go off.

Wait what? Not moving is not moving where is the relevance? You declare you are trying to walk outside my melee range you take a walk action. I prevent you from doing so. You ended a walk action. Terror triggers. It does NOT matter if you moved if A: you took the action and B: it ended in melee with terror.

Terror has no mention of movement. Only that a walk action ended in its melee range. I obey a model next to teddy. I say it takes a walk action. I Do Not Move It. Terror test would then ensue. So does moving 0 count as moving and posting faqs stating such has no relevance