Im not sure wether i understand the Manouevres you need switch between the different Distance classes correctly.

engage <-> Close 1 man. with proper disengage or 0 Man but a free hack for your opponent

close <->Medium 1? Man.

Long <-> Medium 2 Man.

Extrem <->Long 3 Man.

Ribuk said:

Yes to all the maneouvers required to move the distances.

I'm not so sure when it comes to the free hack though. As discussed in another thread... there is not any actual mention of any kind of "attack of opportunity" in this game.

Some seem to be of the opinion (me included) that you "must perform a disengage maneouver to safely disengage" means that you MUST perform the disengage maneouver. The "safely disengage" part is only the games excuse for why it is so.

The reason I believe people are reading something more into that sentence (the attack of opportunity thingy) is not based on what the rules actually say, but based on preconceptions from other roleplaying games. I myself thought it meant some kind of free "attack of opportunity" at first, but after i read the explanation above i realised that my reason was based on "logics/preconceptions" due to my previous experience with another roleplaying game... not by what this game actually states in its rules.

There are however some who think that there is such a thing as "attack of opportunity" in this game. I have no idea how to explain the total lack of any kind of information anywhere in the rules regarding this so called "attack of opportunity". (Are they free? Do the extra attacks cost fatigue/stress? Do people have an unlimited amount of "attack of opportunities" once per enemy or can they do it just once per round? etc).

I broke it down in the other thread, but I'll repeat the cliff notes version here. Say there are three combatants, A, B and C. A and B are engaged, and C is close to the engagement, like so: AB-C On B's turn, he may spend one manuever to engage C without safely disengaging from A. A would get a free normal melee strike, then the fight would look like A-BC

Another example: This time, C is a medium distance from A and B. Like so: ABC If A disengages from B, he will remain at medium distance to C: A-BC

(In this example, A is ALSO medium distance to C, of course. If I weren't using text, I'd have A and B aligned vertically, the same distance from C.)

B may, if he wants to for some reason, move directly from the engagement to close range with C as a single maneuver. That is, ABC becomes A-B-C. Because he left the engagement with a move maneuver instead of the disengage maneuver, A gets a free swing at him.

There are no clear-cut free attacks in the rules from not disengaging. The rules just say 'once engaged with an opponent, a character must perform a maneuver to safely disengage, otherwise they may be attacked'.

Either this means that if you don't disengage, you cannot do anything else either... OR the one you're unsafely disengaging from gets to do any of his attacks on you he wishes, since the attack has never been said to be 'a melee basic attack', just an attack. So technically, if the GM is going with the interpretation that they get a free attack, it could be a fireball if that's what the other person has available.

My view is that they have to spend that Maneuver to disengage, period, and the threat of attack is just a fluff justification for it. One could get around this with a Perform A Stunt, of course, which could model the risk of leaving yourself open with extra challenge dice and consequences of banes.

I don't think that "Engaged" is an actual distance, as far as Close, Medium, Long and Extreme are concerned. If you're Close, you can use a manoeuvre to Engage. If you're Engaged, you need to use a manoeuvre to be considered unengaged again. If you do that, your opponent cannot (normally) attack you, without performing a manoeuvre first to engage you.

Engaged is not a distance by the categories that is used in the rulebook but on the the otherhand it is a category that describes your location and you needmanouevres to move forth and back from this engaged location to an close location.

I agree with you that there are no rules for opportunity attacks but thought that is the result because they decided for that free-rule light-cinematic approach.

."Otherwise they may be attacked".

If that is only a fluffy description????

Ribuk said:

Yes, it's the fluff justification for the disengage from opponent maneuver. Who in their right mind would voluntarily allow someone to attack them? The rules further state that you do not have to use a manuever to disengage when the engagement consists of only friendly characters and allies, further reinforcing that if it contains enemies, you do.

Cut & Run is another action that allows you to disengage for free, so you could then use a manoeuvre to move to Medium range (or dive out the window, or flip a table over as an obstacle, etc.).