mac40k said:

This is pretty wide open to interpretation at this point. "Engaged" is definitely an abstract range but its also very clearly a status as well. The rules are clear about that. We also know for certain that you can disengage without spending a maneuver. As a matter of fact, the only time you have to use a maneuver to disengage is when you're facing an opponent in combat. That says to me that its physically within the parameters of the rules to leave an engagement with a hostile opponent, but there will be consequences...thus the rules paraphrase that Gallows provided.

So there's some room from interpretation here. As for me, my reading of the Combat section had me coming away with the idea that it was clearly possible to leave an engagement without spending the maneuver, but that it was dangerous to do so. I assumed it meant a free attack but that's not specifically mentioned in the rules.

However, I can also see how one would read it as meaning that you have to spend the maneuver, otherwise you're still in the engagement and thus at risk of being attacked. But since you can clearly move the abstract range distance of Engaged for free, and also remove the status of Engaged for free (in all other cases but combat) I have to think that its possible even in combat...with consequences. Plus, it just feels right to me, so I may have read it with bias in the first place.

Also, something to consider in regards to the original specific question...the rules say spend a maneuver to safely leave an Engaged Opponent. They could have used much more direct wording and just said, spend a maneuver to disengage a hostile engagement, but they didn't. They specifically said an opponent. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they meant for it to sound the way it does, but your answer would have been very clear with that wording. So if I assume that the current wording is just as clear in intent, then it leads me to believe it takes 3 maneuvers. Just something to consider...

Standard Maneouvres:

• Engage or Disengage from an opponent

There are no rules for what happens if you try to disengage from an opponent without spending a maneuver because there are no rules for disengaging from an opponent without spending a maneuver. There is only a maneuver for engaging or disengaging an opponent. You do not need to perform this maneuver to leave an engagement consisting of only friendly characters or allies, but if there are any opponents you do.

Just out of interest - for those who think you can disengage without spending a maneuver and risk a free hit. Can you then engage without spending a maneuver also at the risk of a free hit (a reckless move into combat)?

mac40k said:

mac40k said:

A couple points as to why I think its open to interpretation. The most obvious one is that it specifically states a maneuver is required to safely disengage from an opponent. If there's not any other way to leave a hostile engagement, why even use that particular phrasing? Especially when they follow with "otherwise, they may be attacked". It could very well just have been poor wording, but as is it implies that there are alternatives to safely disengaging.

You can perform the same movement when leaving an allied engagement, without using the maneuver. Obviously there are no repercussions for doing so because there's no threat. So what exactly is the maneuver cost for disengaging an opponent paying for? What is that representing in the fiction?

Those two facts together make me feel like the intent is that there be an alternative to a measured retreat. I agree, its not spelled out though. If the rules had still required the maneuver expenditure to leave an allied engagement I'd be much more on board with your interpretation. After all, we know that you have to use the maneuver to actually Engage either an ally or an opponent. (Well that isn't entirely true, technically there is no Engage Ally maneuvre...by the rules I suppose we'd take an Interact with Environment maneuvre which defaults us to being Engaged with the ally.) It's just strange to me that you have to pay to achieve Engagement with anything, but you only pay to Disengage from Opponents. Obviously its not hard at all for me to imagine what that cost is for...but if its true, that's a cost that I should have the option of not paying (just the same as I don't pay it for non-hostiles) and suffer the consequences.

So in short, I agree with you that the RAW doesn't cover this so a strict reading precludes it. My interpretation though is that the rules read with an implication that is not expanded upon.

Munchkin said:

Very good question, and one that gave me pause as I studied the rules. I sort of answered this above from a different angle. More specifically though, I don't think the rules give precedence for it because we're required to spend the maneuver to assume the Engaged status with everything, there doesn't seem to be any exceptions in the rules. However, for disengaging, that's free to do from anything...except hostiles.

The rules don't mention anything about safely engaging, there's just engaging. Do I think it makes sense to allow it? I think it makes sense and is easily represented in the fiction. But there's no implication anywhere that I've seen that would indicate it being a possibility. If I knew for sure that it was always free to engage all nonhostiles, allies and objects, (which I admit I'm not 100% sure of either way, see my parenthetical in my last post)...then I'd say that it makes perfect sense to allow a free engage of hostiles for a free attack. I'd also admit that there's no RAW support for it though.

If you allow someone to disengage without spending a maneuver, they can go from engaged to medium range in 1 maneuver. Since it takes two maneuvers to go from medium range to engaged, it doesn't make sense that the reverse movement is 1 maneuver less. Furthermore, you can only move within close range if you are already unengaged. So if I only want to move 5 feet and not all the way to medium range, I can only do so if I am unengaged. Doesn't make sense that I can move from engaged all the way to medium range, but I can't move from engaged to 5 feet away.

The bit about "otherwise they may be attacked" is fluff justification for the maneuver. If you interpret that as being able to disengage without using a maneuver, then you also have to make up the rules for what the consequences are. Do all opponents get free attacks? If you are also in the camp of engaged with one = engaged with all, surely they must. Do we assume these are in addition to their normal attacks in the round and they can attack even if they have already used an action this round? Can they use any attack ability/card or is it a basic melee attack only? Doesn't this free attack action interrupt the character's turn? If so and the opponents use an ability that has a boon effect line that grants a free maneuver (which includes Melee Strike), when can they use it? If you assume the attack has to occur before the character moves away (since I guess they are going to end up medium range away afterwards since they can't move somewhere else within close), then shouldn't the opponent get to use their free maneuver immediately after the attack before the character's turn resumes since it is part of the free attack resolution, thereby possibly re-engaging the character before he can move away? What if the opponent rolls two banes on a Melee Strike which lets them disengage for free? You were already letting them disengage for free anyway. Does that mean the opponents have to use the universal effect and suffer fatigue instead? Or can they still elect to use the card line to no effect? What if one rolls two banes and then another rolls two boons? Are they engaged or disengaged?

If you want to make all that stuff up and adjudicate some hairy situations, more power to you. For me it's easier to just go by the rule part (the bold, bullet statement) and always require a maneuver to disengage.

mac40k said:

Funny you should mention this as I was doing some brainstorming about this very movement topic, about these complications you're mentioning. As far as the reverse taking less and not making sense, the same scenario exists for engaging nonhostile "targets". Two maneuvers to close and "engage" from medium range but only one to "disengage" and move to medium range.

I don't follow your points after "Furthermore", I apologize...I'm getting pretty tired! If the interpretation I'm considering (I'm still not convinced of it either way and think its a bit ambiguous) is true it doesn't make the relationship from Engaged to Close and Engaged to Medium any different really. By your interpretation its 1 maneuver to Disengage, and then another to get to somewhere else in Close range OR get to Medium range. Two total. My interpretation would be the exact same unless you unsafely left combat which is no maneuvers and then 1 to get somewhere else in close range or 1 to get to Medium. So for one you can get unsafely from Engaged to Close or Medium. Or you can do the exact same thing but pay an extra and do it safely. I don't understand why in either interpretation you can't move from Engaged to 5 feet away.

Edit to Add: I completely agree with your other points concerning no rules for what to do if you CAN disengage for free. There's nothing there for us to make a rule on it and it would have to be completely house ruled. So yes, the alternative interpretation is certainly not clean.

Arghh, I'm tired as well. I was looking at it as them using their free maneuver to go from engaged with an opponent to medium range in one "movement" albeit in an "unsafe" fashion. You are saying that they are going from engaged to close for free if they suffer the consequences, then can use their free maneuver to move either to medium range or elsewhere within close. I agree that if you looking at it that way, then my first paragraph doesn't apply, but that still leaves you adjudicating what happens when they "unsafely" disengage. Again, I find it far easier to interpret the "otherwise they may be attacked" as fluff, not an implied option for free movement. After all, the maneuver isn't called Engage or Safely Disengage from an opponent.

As it was looking like this discussion was getting long in the tooth with only interpretive differences to show for it, I sent it in as a rules question and Jay has offered clarification. For the record, mac40k has been right on the money with his interpretation, all the way down to the fluff description of disengage. So good job mac, I tip my hat. Here's the questions and response:

=====================================================================================================

2) Is it possible to leave an engagement without spending the maneuver to Disengage? The wording of the rules seem to indicate that Disengage is an action that you perfrom to "safely" move away from an opponent [a cautious retreat], implying that there perhaps is an unsafe way to leave combat [Run Away! Run Away!]

This system really is clean and simple, which is what I like about it. If you start coming up with complex logical branches and interpretations for it, it's most assuredly because you're not interpreting the rules correctly. It's Occam's Razor all the way!

donbaloo, thanks for sending the question in and getting us an official response. Thanks to mac40k for his great arguments in this lively debate.

Yeah, good point Lexicanum. All this discussion has got me wondering about another aspect of the equation though, I'll post a new thread. This one should be pretty simple though, just wondering how other folks are doing it.

Good to see this finally put to rest since it has come up several times. I concede that the engaged with one, engaged with all crowd was right. So exact positioning of figures or stand ups is less relevant. This does make sense since the action is not static and taking place in the orderly fashion necessary for game purposes. However, I reserve the right to make common sense judgments about what this means. While a PC in a bar fight may technically be considered to be adjacent to everyone else in the engagement, that doesn't mean that he will suffer a dozen or more attacks each round. Two or three at best. Similarly, if a PC is standing in a doorway and is engaged with a mob outside, he is part of the engagement, but does not have to worry about being attacked (with melee weapons) by a dozen or more foes. OTOH, if a player tried to tell me that they could disengage from a horde of foes that had him completely surrounded since there is no explicit size limit to an engagement and all the FAQ says is that they have to perform a maneuver to disengage from one or more opponents, I'd laugh at him. it's obvious that the GM still has to use common sense and do what is best for the situation at the moment.

donbaloo said:

I'd like Jay to come around here sometimes, answering our deepest concerns, like authors do on wotc boards. It's cool.

mac40k said:

IN my game yesterday, a PC was attacked by 10 undead who used their power to fatigue+stress him... I didn't knew how much could block him at the same time and I stated a number equal to his Toughness. That balanced the effect of that power.

Certainly, as always common sense should rule the day. The fiction itself can always put restraints on how the rules should be applied. That's always the GM's job, to adjudicate those situations appropriately.

Sorry, but I don't understand why players have to perform a manoeuvre to engage a friendly character but don't need to do this when they want to disengage. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

willmanx said:

Well I'm sure it would be a chore to constantly monitor the forums and answer stuff that comes up. And even though he's not doing it here, I will say that I sent the question out last night before bed and he got it answered first thing this morning, so that's pretty good service if you ask me.

Armoks said:

Uh oh, down this road lies madness Armoks!

Seriously though, that was part of what was causing me to interpret things the way I was. Two things to consider:

1)I can't find where it says that you actually have to use a maneuver to engage another ally. Most people are doing that and I've assumed the same.

2)There's not even an engage an ally maneuver.

We do know that some skills and actions require you to be engaged with the ally. So how do you do it? By default if they're a part of your engagement then you are engaged with them, no maneuver necessary per RAW and Jay's clarification.

Since Engaged is also simply a status, meaning in close contact and interacting with, then using a maneuver to interact with the environment (your ally) would also default you to engaged. Maybe that's all there is to it...the fact that it requires you a maneuver to interact with the environment.

Perhaps engaging an ally doesn't technically cost a maneuver, its the moving from point A (where you are) to point B (your ally) in close range that is costing the manuever. Then once you're there you're Engaged by default since you're in contact with them.

I don't have the book with me right now so I can't look it up. But I'm pretty sure somewhere in there it says that you're assumed to be engaged with allies or party members if you're in close range. That is, it's free to engage party members / allies.

I can't find that anywhere Lexicanum. Not saying its not there, I just can't find it. I'm gonna open a new thread for this specific topic as this one's been all over the place.

1) A PC engaged with an ally.

When the PC is engaged with the ally and want to move to the close range, he have to perform 1 manoeuvre to do so.

2) A PC engaged with an opponent.

When the PC is engaged with the opponent and want to move to the close range, he have to perform 2 manoeuvres (1 to move to the close range and 1 to disengage) to do so.

This is how we play...

Armoks said:

As Donbaloo said, there doesn't appear to be a rule written anywhere that actually says you have to spend a manoeuver to engage an ally, the inference has been made that since certain actions require you to be engaged with an ally, and not just at close range, that you must expend effort to become engaged. It is also correct that you do not have to spend an manoeuver to disengage non-hostile creatures/objects.

My justification for this (this rationale having nothing to actually do with rules) is:

Imagine you are 50 feet away from a friend, and you want to be close enough to apply a bandage to said friend. Well if your friend is needing bandaging time is of the essence, you can spend a manoeuver to cover the distance from 50 feet down to 5 or 10 feet but to do so requires you to move at quite a hussle, (not a sprint per say, but at a good clip). Now you are 5-10 feet away, but still not close enough to bandage them, So you need to spend another manoeuver to get close enough to slap that bandage on. Yes its much less distance to go 5-10 than the 40-45 but if you tried to cover that last 5-10 feet at the same speed you covered the first 40 feet, you would end running running face first into your buddy, probably knock both of you to the ground. So even though the distances are significantly different, it takes the same investment of attention to cover both the longer and shorter distance safely.

If you don't buy this, get 50 feet away from a brick wall, then run at it at top speed, Now without slowing down at all, try stopping at half an arms distance from the wall (approximatley how close you need to be to apply a bandage).

Now when you and your friend are ready to move away from each other (leave the engagement) you can simply run off at top speed, since you no longer need to worry about running into someone, this is why you can go from engaged with an ally or object to being 50 feet (medium for the sake of the example) away for the cost of 1 manoeuver even though it cost 2 to get from that same distance to next to him.

Once again, this has no rule basis what-so-ever, but it does fit within the RAW and seems to make some bit of sense.