Graver said:

Not necessarily stun, but push away for a second. OR even just force him to jump backwards. Combat is abstracted in DH, and winning an opposed WS test can mean many things.

Besides there is no hard rule that there are only X ways of becoming not engaged anymore, it's just a rule that if you are "next to" someone able to attack you with a melee attack, and you are considered "engaged".

Friend of the Dork said:

Oh, I'd agree, but since we're talking rules, I figured I would put up an interpretation of what he was saying that functioned 100% by the RAW, no questions asked ;-) Maneuver seems to have some doubts as to whether it could realistically work in the way Varnias stated and, in my outlook, I would say it wouldn't unless he could describe how it would in a convincing manner that would allow me to believe it was a WS check for maneuver and not an S check for something closer to a knockdown. Stunning them, however, is prety cut and dried and little argument could be made for you to still be engaged with them.

To be honest, though, I would think that pushing someone away would be a Knockdown (knockback?) test as it seems more brute force (S) then finesse and skill (WS), but again, that's just me.

You're not physically pushing anyone, they are moving away from your Nasty Pointy Thing that you happen to be violently and proficiently (just won an opposed WS test) swinging in the space they just kept their body.

Look at any fencing match between an uneven opponents: The weaker fighter moves backwards, and backwards until there is no more room to move. Not once did the other fighter touch him...

Darth Smeg said:

This is my point though - if the stronger fighter doesn't keep pursuing the weaker fighter as he moves backwards, then ex hypothesi there is still room to move. You can't use your superior skill to pressure an opponent into moving backwards, and end up not engaged with him.

I agree with the point Graver is making - you can imagine using brute force to shove someone away from you, but it is hard to imagine using skill to force them to step back in quite this way.

i see no problem with it. In a boxing match the attacker wants to follow up - if he didn't the defender would fall back, get a grip, and then go on the offensive. Which is exactly what will happen in this game unless that full-auto burst kills him.

Precisely, you make your opponent step back or to the sides by feinting, and throwing blows towards the space you wish him to exit. Yo do not have to follow through into the opening you create. You might take a step forwards, driving your opponent back, only to spring back to your opponents surprise...

there has been even a better video, but I can't find it anymore

Graver said:

The knock-down action implies that you try to knock your opponent completely of his/her feet to a prone position. However not all tackles, bodyslams and shoves in melee has that intention. Sometimes you just want to shove your opponent away in order to get your guard up or your weapon raised. Either you shove him/her with your arms or you create more space for you by feinting attacks or use aggressive footwork in order to get your opponent to back down. Hence the manouvre action would be fitting, even if Knockdown would work as well.

However a question regarding knockdown: would the rules state that if you've been engaged in melee with a target that has been knocked down to a prone position, can you still not use basic weapons against that target because you are still considered to be in melee?

Cause if that's the case it really needs changing. If you do bodyslam your opponent to the ground, you won't stand there looking like an idiot, you shoot him/her while he/she's still struggling to get up, regardless if you carry a basic weapon or a pistol...

Varnias Tybalt said:

even if you could attack him with a basic weapon (which you can't because he just gets -10 to WS I think if fiighting prone) you would get -10 to BS for trying to hit a prone target (lol)

vogue69 said:

Nope. Attacking a prone target actually gets you a +10 bonus, not a -10 penalty. Add that with the fact that you're firing from point blank range, it gives you a total of +40 to your BS, then we add the fact that you probably empty your mag into the knock down target giving you an additional +20 we're up to +60 here. Should provide a realistic and messy death for the poor sod getting bodyslammed by a resolute soldier with an autogun.

Darth Smeg said:

I think this is all pretty debateable. But say I concede the point for the sake of argument - I still think that reserving a half action for manoeuvring in the way described makes little sense. The delay action is supposed to represent a character "watching and waiting for an opportunity". I'd say that, if an opponent has successfull charged you, you've pretty much missed your opportunity. I'm tempted to houserule that a "delay" action is disrupted if you are the subject of a melee attack (also if you attempt to dodge a shot, or take damage from a shot - basically anything which would break your concentration).

Varnias Tybalt said:

vogue69 said:

Actually we're both wrong here. This is a quote from the rulebook:

Prone

Targets that have been knocked down are easier to hit and they find it harder to hit other foes. Weapon Skill Tests made to attack Prone targets are Ordinary (+10). Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill Tests made by Prone targets are difficult (-10). Dodge Tests made whilst Prone are Hard (-20).

So it is the Prone target that has a harder time to fight back, not the standing attacker. However the attacker didn't get any bonus to BS from shooting at a prone target (but do get a bonus of +10 to WS), although it doesn't really matter since the point blank range and the full auto burst at the prone target still nets a total of +50 anyway. The Prone target will most likely be toast in this situation...