Paraphrasing a line on p.52 regarding using a maneuver to engage or disengage, it states that if an character disengages without using a maneuver to do so, its opponent gets to attack him. But... I can't find anything else regarding how to do this.

So, it normally takes a maneuver to disengage, but I can choose to disengage w/o a maneuver at the expense of suffering an attack?

And what type of attack does the opponent get to make... any action card that it meets the requirements for?

So, it normally takes a maneuver to disengage, but I can choose to disengage w/o a maneuver at the expense of suffering an attack?

Yes, this is a standard for WFRP and DH/RT. You must use an action (maneuver in the case of 3e) to safely disengage, otherwise your opponent gets a free attack.

And what type of attack does the opponent get to make... any action card that it meets the requirements for?

That would be my opinion. Any action card that they meet the requirements for and that is not recharging, just like if it is the opponent's turn. It's dangerous to disengage without protecting your retreat.

I definitely agree with the idea that a hasty disengagement would provoke a free attack, and the rules do state as much, but it would be nice if the situation were expounded upon just a bit. " If a model disengages without using a maneuver, its opponent may immediately perform any melee attack action (or any basic melee attack action?) that it meets to requirements to use" or something similar.

The rules address what happens if I disengage while I am the active player, but they only imply what I get to do if an opponent disengages from me.

This is confusing, because you have to use a manoeuvre to engage. So, how could you disengage (move) without using a manoeuvre? Perhaps you must do that and nothing else. In other words, leave combat, but no attacks or other actions. Dunno.

NezziR said:

yeah...read the rule book threw again and as far as i can tell....no other way to move....so yeah..bumb rule lol

The rules say you muse use a maneuver to engage/disengage.

The rules then say you may disengage without using a maneuver, but suffer a free attack.

So, I'm not sure what's really confusing. To safely disengage, you use a maneuver (either your one free, or spend a fatigue to get another maneuver). If instead you choose to disengage without using a maneuver, you suffer an attack... but then still retain your free maneuver (or don't have to spend an extra fatigue to perform a disengage maneuver) to do something else, like move away. Honestly, it's exactly like v2/DH/RT. Disengage is a full action, unless you give your opponents a free attack, in which case you still have your 1-full/2-half actions left to do other things.

Don't forget, you can gain a fatigue point and do an additional maneuver. So, I could use my free maneuver to disengage, then gain a fatigue to move away safely. Or, if I can't afford to gain the fatigue (or don't want to get it), I can 'unsafely' disengage, giving my opponent a free attack, but allowing me to use my free maneuver to move away.

Even more theory ... a player could use their free maneuver to move to close range with an enemy, gain a fatigue to engage them, use an attack action, gain another fatigue to disengage and gain a third fatigue to move away to a safe distance. This *could* be done. 3 fatigue is a lot, though, for only causing a single attack ... considering it only takes 7 fatigue (for a T3 PC) to fall unconscious, and you're really close to gaining a bunch of [M] on all your physical actions. It is doable, though. Or, the PC could only need to gain 2 fatigue by disengaging without needing to use a maneuver, although they will suffer a retaliatory attack from their opponent (which would seem to be what doing the whole combo was trying to avoid).

The only shaky thing to me, is what kind of attack can be made as the opponent's free attack? Only a basic melee action? Any melee attack action card that isn't recharging and they have the requirements for? Nothing says otherwise, so I would personally assume it's the latter (maybe I'm just evil). It also applies to monsters disengaging from players as well as players disengaging from monsters. Again, nothing says otherwise, and for the most part the monsters follow the exact same rules as the players.

I think the question is, if you must use a manoeuvre to engage and also to move from one range category to the next (implying that all movement, even engaging costs a manoeuvre), then why would disengaging be different in that you are allowed to perform it without a manoeuvre? It could be that disengaging is an exception. I would buy that, but I can't find it stated.

Until otherwise clarified, my houserule would be that disengaging ends your turn. If you perform any other action during your turn, other than disengaging (such as attacking), disengaging allows a free attack from your opponent. This would also prevent, or at least limit, the 'free drive-by' you outlined earlier, which I think is stretching things a bit, even with the build up of fatigue.

So, you could attack, then disengage (ending your turn), but that would allow your opponent to retaliate. However, if you started your turn with a disengage, then you could do so safely (again - ending your turn).

...I think. I'm still thinking about this.

See, I would think that the reason for a maneuver to engage/disengage is to "safely" position yourself near/away from an enemy. To do it safely, it takes some time and maneuvering. Making a turn end with a disengage feels wrong to me. 3e allows players all these choices for performing multiple maneuvers and pushing themselves, and now you are restricting them. If you feel they are unbalanced, I would, instead, go the other way. Allow a player to also Engage without using a maneuver, but allow the Target a free attack action(just like disengaging). I would almost say a free maneuver, but you can use maneuvers to disengage, which would defeat the point .. to we're left with actions. You could limit it to a basic melee attack action, though, so it isn't overpowering.

Personally, I think it is still balanced. I don't mind the way it is set up (at least without having played a few times).

Oh, here's an idea! You could impose an additional fatigue and/or stress penalty for performing maneuvers after disengaging.

"Any maneuvers performed by a character in a turn, after they have disengaged in the same turn, cost an extra fatigue and stress."

So, if a PC disengages and then performs another maneuver, it will cost them 2 fatigue and 1 stress. Now you're looking at some serious penalties accumulating. Work with the system, not against it.