This is probably going to end up being in the realm of House Rules, but I have two situations that come up regularly and we've been essentially going by what I assume is RAW. It's to do with running into combat as well as withdrawing and multiple attackers.

Situation 1:

Enemy A is standing across on the other side of the room, holding a really big gun, ready to shoot when it gets to his turn. Acolyte B is a HTH specialist, but he has the jump on Enemy A. Sadly, Enemy A is quite a long way away, so Acolyte B can't make the charge. Acolyte B does have the 'run' distance, so he decides to run into contact with Enemy A. He doesn't get to attack, but he's in HTH with him now. Acolyte B's round ends.

Enemy A, in his round starts, and now he's in contact with someone and he only has a rifle (improvised weapon, primitive) and is against someone with decent armour, there's little point in attacking him in HTH, so he pulls back with a 1/2 action so that he can get a shot off and -WHACK!- Acolyte B gets a free hit in because Enemy B is choosing to move away rather than a Full Action Withdraw.

Now, does that seem fair? Acolyte B couldn't get the charge, yet he gets to attack anyway? It certainly makes shooters harder to use when all you've got to do is get your HTH specialist into contact and you'll get a free hit (or an opponent standing there doing nothing).

Have we got this completely wrong, or is this something that will need to be turned into a House Rule (I'm thinking of giving Enemy A a +30 to his Dodge as he tries to move away from a Running, not Charging, attacker).

Situation 2:

Enemy A has some help this time, his buddy Enemy C, and they're both in contact with Acolyte B and have been since last round. Enemy C is better in HTH, so is going to rescue Enemy A. Acolyte B is still going first, and swings at Enemy A. The hit is good, and Enemy A finds himself quite wounded. He knows he won't survive another hit - and he's a shooter, not a bruiser - so he decides to book it and leave Acolyte B to Enemy C, taking a regular move (not a Full Action withdrawal) so that he can still bring his gun to bare. But then -WHACK!- Acolyte B gets a free hit in against an enemy moving away.

Now does that seem fair? One on one I can see the reason (turn your back on your opponent and you suffer the consequences). But when you out number the enemy, shouldn't the other one (who's staying, or, even, the last one to run) be able to hold up their opponent, allowing the others to get away?

Again, if this something we've completely missed in the rules, or another area where House Rules come into play (I'm thinking of either disallowing attacks against fleeing opponents when you are still engaged with other targets, or giving a penalty to the WS attacks, or even as a Reaction it can be done, meaning the player has to think about whether they want to give up their Dodge/Parry).


What are we doing wrong?

BYE

Case 1: The rules about Disengage and Fleeing do not specify what exactly they mean when it comes to who is eligible. Disengage says "opponents who you were engaged do not gain the customary free attack." and the Fleeing sidebar says "If you're trying to move away from one or more melee opponents without using the Disengage action, each opponent gets a free attack against you as you move away."

Notice that the terms "engaged" and "melee opponents" aren't very well defined. The act of combat compresses many simultaneous actions down to a sequential order. Were I the GM, I would rule that simply having moved next to an enemy is not the same thing as engaging them. Charge is meant to represent a somewhat controlled attack, running forward and preparing to strike, and even that results in a penalty to defense because you were forced to balance movement and attacking. The Run action is a full-tilt sprint, as represented by the fact that you gain a level of Fatigue normally if you do it even twice in a row. An Acolyte who ran as fast as he possibly could would not be able to meaningfully engage his opponent once he got to the location. He has simply moved next to this Enemy, not engaged it in melee combat.

Recall also that the Enemy's turn would, in reality, occur semi-simultaneously with the Acolyte's. It's not like the Acolyte sprints to the location, stops, and then the Enemy moves away. Just because they are next to one another does not mean the Acolyte has engaged in melee especially after a Run and that would be my ruling.

Case 2: In this case I would have to rule for the player. He should definitely get his free attack in this situation. Recall however that he will still get a Dodge attempt, especially since it is the beginning of his turn and he will have his Reaction still available. And afterwards, the melee enemy can move between the gun-toting enemy and the Acolyte to forestall any charging... or the Gun-wielder can make sure to move out of a clear straight line from the Acolyte.

Consider also that it is your duty as a GM to impose penalties and bonuses for all of the infinite situations not covered by the book proper, and if you decide that this situation would make it harder for the Acolyte to hit, or easier for the Enemy to Dodge, or even that the Melee Enemy could use his Parry to intercept that Free Attack., you should rule that way. This makes perfect sense with the Ganging-Up rules, just flipped around i.e. they all get bonuses against you, you get penalties for trying to pick one out when he moves away. All of these things are within your power and are in fact expected and required of you in order to run a good game.

Hello

This is how we've been playing it. running into combat range does get you engaged but leave's you at a disadvantage, if your enemy isn't so biased towards shooting they might find themselves on the receiving end of an all out attack or multi attack action. And that free hack is not as good as a charge attack anyway.

In the second case yes, that will spawn the free attack, it is after all the perfect time to use the disengage action although that does cost you a half action shot.

I don't see anything unbalanced in case 1 (and would do it the same way). If enemy A wanted to shoot Acolyte B, then enemy A should not have gotten so close.

I'd consider both case 1 and case 2 to allow the parting hit. You stand next to someone you don't like, he doesn't care about defending, you can whack him in the back.

Consider this: If, in case 1, the enemy had a melee weapon and attacked the acolyte and the acolyte parried - could he have used Counterstrike?

I'd also say that in both cases, 1 and 2, a free attack is warranted.

In case 1, you ask if it's fair if Acolyte B couldn't get the charge, yet gets to attack the fleeing enemy anyway. Yes, yes it is fair. If Acolyte B had gotten the charge then, in that situation, he would get 2 attacks with one at +10, not just the one. Would the supper specialized enemy have done anything differently had he been charged? Would he some how have been able to defend himself better and not chosen to back the hell up because he didn't have the foresight to attach a mono-bayonet to his riffle? In this situation, the acolyte only gets one basic unmodified attack against the enemy instead of two, one of which gets a +10 -I'd say that's fair. It also illustrates the cost of over-specialization (he should really have had the foresight to have a good melee weapon with him as well... how dose one survive on the battlefields or marketplaces of 40k without one?), and that cost is -WHACK-!

In case 2, you ask how it's fair for the acolyte to get a free attack against an enemy who decided to get greedy and forgo the fully defensible disengage action in favor of turning his back to the acolyte and hauling ass so he could still get a shot off even though his friend is there (that shot's gonna be a -20 anyway for firing into melee) to help outnumber the acolyte. Here's how it's fair. One, as pointed out by others, the enemy could have chosen to take the disengage action and thus receive no free attacks against him. Since his friend is already there engaging the acolyte, said acolyte wouldn't be able to instantly charge/move into melee with him again without risking a free attack on himself. That would have freed the enemy up to take a nice aimed shot at the acolyte his next turn but, instead, he got greedy and wanted to shot the acolyte that very turn. The price of greed is -WHACK-!

Now, he can still, assuming he hasn't used any reaction, parry the free attack and receive a +10 (which would counter the -10 for using his riffle to parry) because he has the acolyte outnumbered which is one part of the advantage of outnumbering. However, as pointed out, the real advantage was the fact that the enemy could have disengaged with less fear that the acolyte would give chase because his friend is there to distract the acolyte and hit him in the back if he tried to pursue the disengaging enemy. So, yes, when you outnumber the enemy, one is able to hold up their opponent allowing the other to get away... as long as they do it in an inelegant and proper manner, avoid temptation and greed, and don't get sloppy or stupid with their tactics.

Lessons learned:

• The price of over-specialization is -WHACK-!
• The price of greed is -WHACK-!
• The price of not being prepared for any eventuality on the field of combat (like suddenly finding yourself in melee combat) is -WHACK-!

For case 1, I would rule that the character is not engaged with the enemy for the purposes of them only being able to use pistol weapons, and would allow the enemy to fire with point blank bonus versus the character(for sufficiently large weapons, this will ruin the characters day). As far as the free attack goes, I'm not sure how I would handle it (would probably always make use of the free shot than run away). I would also inform the player of this before hand, as just running at someone with a gun is usually a very bad idea. Consider in tabletop, if you can't actually make the charge move, then pretty much no matter what, the unit is going to open to getting shot at (especially by the enemy they were trying to charge at). I know that is a bad analogy, but roll with it.

I've always viewed being engaged in melee (for the purposes of pistols only) as being the result of an actual attack roll, not just proximity (hence the existence of a point blank range bonus at all, as otherwise it would only exist for enemies that are restrained/knocked out, etc. at which point an attack roll is basically pointless, just make the character fire shots and call it done).

For case 2, I think that is entirely fair, and would give no penalty to the attack (besides whats in the rules already for things like ganging up). However, if I saw it as being useful for keeping the fight interesting, I would (as a the gm) cheat on the dodge roll the enemy gets, and just say he dodges the attack (unless he has a particularly bad agi)

Because at the end of the day, I see the job of the GM as the person who keeps the game interesting, which is not always synonymous with fair. I view cheating as one of the most powerful tools available to meet this goal. Just remember that interesting doesn't mean unfair either, just challenge them. But kill the character if the player is being stupid.

In defense of my earlier statements on case 1, consider the genestealer, and how far they can move. Are you telling me that in any fight with them, its basically pointless to use a basic/heavy weapon (assuming 1:1 or higher of genestealers to party members ratio, such that there are enough 'stealers to be able to get one adjacent to every character on turn one, although not necceisairly all charging/attacking), because they will get right up the the characters faces, and be impossible to shoot?

Cifer said:

I got the impression that if you decided to allow a free attack against you there was nothing you could do to prevent it should it hit since reactions could only be used when it is not your turn.

I know I would rule that in case 1 just because the acolyte ran up to engage the enemy he is not engaged. He is in fact, at point blank range. The enemy will now shoot a lot of bullets at him, or if he wants to, he could run away without getting hit since no swing was possible in the first place.

This would also mean that any additional acolyte could shoot the enemy (or additional enemies shooting the acolyte) without incuring the -20 BS for firing into melee.

Now if the enemy actually swung in melee and the acolyte parried as Cifer suggested . . . I would allow a counterstrike.

Cinematically this lends itself to a fluid idea of combat, not the checkers method of I move, then you move, etc. That would be my house ruling on it.

Khouri said:

I do not recall reading anything limiting Reactions to only being used off-turn. As a matter of fact, both Dodge and Parry make no such distinction. In addition, there would never be a point for a Tech-Priest to take the Ballistic Mechadendrite , as that requires the expenditure of your reaction to use. If you could not use a reaction on your own turn, then you could never use it.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Reactions can be used at any time, there's nothing that says Reactions cannot be used on your own turn. Consider that the Vindicare can use his Reaction to reload or load a single shot, and this would also seem to be able to be used on their turn... i.e. Spend Reaction to load a Hellfire Round, Aim for Half, then Fire.

Resist Possession is also a Reaction. If you couldn't use it on your own turn, you wouldn't get to reroll Possession attemps from Perils of the Warp activated by you or from Daemon Weapons and that really doesn't make sense.

You can pretty much Dodge anything, at any time, unless it says otherwise. Most Powers which represent ranged attacks can be dodged, grenades can be dodged if you're close enough to the edge of the blast, etc.

At Last Forgot said:

The wording comes from p. 188 where actions are defined.

"All characters receive one Reaction each Round, which may only be used when it is not their Turn."

Khouri said:

Khouri said:

Well now. At a glance there seems nothing in the errata to contradict it, but so many other things which, implied or outright, violate that rule. I think someone should go ask Mack for some official clarification on these points. I call not it.

-=Brother Praetus=-

@Khouri

I got the impression that if you decided to allow a free attack against you there was nothing you could do to prevent it should it hit since reactions could only be used when it is not your turn.

I was referring to the running acolyte being the one who gets stabbed on the enemy's turn.

@KommissarK

I've always viewed being engaged in melee (for the purposes of pistols only) as being the result of an actual attack roll, not just proximity (hence the existence of a point blank range bonus at all, as otherwise it would only exist for enemies that are restrained/knocked out, etc. at which point an attack roll is basically pointless, just make the character fire shots and call it done).

Point Blank range is generally at and below 3 metres - which, especially in hive or voidship settings may be the distance a combat begins at, giving the guy with the combat shotgun and the better initiative a single good chance to mess up the other guy's day.

@Lucrosium

I know I would rule that in case 1 just because the acolyte ran up to engage the enemy he is not engaged. He is in fact, at point blank range. The enemy will now shoot a lot of bullets at him, or if he wants to, he could run away without getting hit since no swing was possible in the first place.

This would also mean that any additional acolyte could shoot the enemy (or additional enemies shooting the acolyte) without incuring the -20 BS for firing into melee.

Now if the enemy actually swung in melee and the acolyte parried as Cifer suggested . . . I would allow a counterstrike.

If the acolyte didn't have the counterattack talent and the enemy just attacked him once in melee and then used his other half action to move away, would the acolyte get the free attack? If so, how would that be different from shooting him?
The more I think about it, any answer that doesn't grant the attack for pure proximity seems to lead to a whole load of inconsistencies.

Cifer said:

I'm not sure what you mean as being different from shooting here. Shooting actions can only be used in the characters turn. Melee attack actions can be used in the characters turn, or outside with things like counter attack, or the free half action standard attack you get when an enemy moves away without disengaging.

The question here is when does being locked in melee begin? There are two ideas listed here in this thread, and I can't seem to find an answer from scouring the core dark heresy book (should look at RT after this). The two ideas are as follows:

1. Characters are locked in melee via proximity.

2. Characters are locked in melee via melee attacks

In the example you give, lets first assume the first idea. Round begins, player starts near an enemy. By proximity, they are considered locked in melee. Player makes a half action attack. Player makes half action move. By rules, this provokes an attack from the enemy.

Lets assume the second idea. Round begins, player starts near enemy. No melee attack has been made between either of them. They are not considered locked in melee. Player makes a half action attack. This locks them in melee. Player makes half action move. By rules, this provokes an attack from the enemy.

If the enemy has counter attack, he can make use of it against the player (as per normal counter attack rules), as long as he parries. If the player moves away, the free attack is not given an action type, it is listed purely as a free half action attack (as per errata, p.11)

I sent in a rules question on this, will post whatever I get.

EDIT: Just checked the RT rules, saw this, page 247 "Engaged in melee: If an attacking Character is adjacent to his target, both the Character and his target are considered to be engaged in melee"

I take attacking to imply an attack needs to be made. While this is RT, I would imagine this applies to DH. What do the rules lawyers think?

Good look up KommisarK , i knew I remembered seeing that somewhere.

Also bear in mind that if a character makes a run action, until their next action enemies that attack you in melee get a +20 to their Ws (but - 20 to Bs for ranged attacks).

@KommissarK

I'm not sure what you mean as being different from shooting here. Shooting actions can only be used in the characters turn. Melee attack actions can be used in the characters turn, or outside with things like counter attack, or the free half action standard attack you get when an enemy moves away without disengaging.

I was referring to the enemy shooting the acolyte, then moving away versus the enemy stabbing the acolyte, then moving away.

EDIT: Just checked the RT rules, saw this, page 247 "Engaged in melee: If an attacking Character is adjacent to his target, both the Character and his target are considered to be engaged in melee"

I take attacking to imply an attack needs to be made. While this is RT, I would imagine this applies to DH. What do the rules lawyers think?

Most interesting. That would also imply that the enemy with the basic weapon still had to backpedal before shooting - as soon as they used it to attack the acolyte from a distance of 0, they'd be in melee where they can't use it.

Wouldn't that almost remove point blank range? How do you get that close without being adjacent? I can buy the first part about not being in melee until someone attacks, that makes sense, but I think I would allow shooting attacks until that happens. If you don't want to get shot at point blank range, don't rush all the way to an enemy without actually locking them in melee.

Honn said:

Not by the rules, and that person who just ran into point blank range now inflicts a - 20 to hit with BS tests (only a +10 overall) and if they survive, what''s to stop them from point blanking the person they just ran up to? No blows have been struck.

Plus it gives the wierd situation where someone has the choice weather to shoot some-one at point blank or hit them in melee combat. I think that's what that rule is there to avoid.

Cifer said:

Have to admit, that is very "chicken and the egg"-ish. This is a very rare situation though. I would say a character could shoot at someone they are adjacent to, but not locked in melee with. After shooting, I could see how they are engaged in melee. It generally would not be an issue, as usually one of the characters wants to be in melee, so by the time the shooting character's turn occurs again , they would be locked.

My goal here is to not allow the run action to be a de facto charge attack, and usable as a way to make nearby heavy weapons useless, and to punish those who would seek to use it as such (but even with the full auto and point blank bonus, they are only getting like, +40, due to the run modifier)

As to your first point:

(Don't have my rulebook in front of me right now, so I may be wrong on this.) I would accept that as being in melee for the purpose of the free attack (as per the above train of thought). But another thing to consider is that walking past an enemy does not trigger the free attack (as you must be locked in melee to trigger the free attack).

As to this thread's original example, I would allow the enemy to backpedal and shoot without taking a free attack. I'm just saying that as a GM in that situation, I would just have the enemy do one last full auto burst to make the character pay. And maybe say the enemies gun is a vanaheim pattern auto shotgun, and he just happend to get a 01 on his attack roll. Scatter (point blank) + full auto = death to poorly armoured characters. Of course get a decent TB and armour, and its a crappy weapon at any range. Or maybe say the guns a heavy bolter, that'd do the trick,,,

EDIT: added that semi-important "again" in the above statement.

You may want to play this by ear on a case by case basis. There might be a fully legimitate reason for characters to be attempting this:

If One character is chasing another, with both making run actions even with a little higher Agility the chaser is not likely to be in charge range but running up to them in order to get that free hack might be their only chance and they are already running the risk of just being attacked back.

Or say there is character with a heavy weapon on a tripod firing at the characters from within running distance, those heavy weapons are death rays (in some cases litterally) and trading fire might not be option, running up and standing on top of the gun would be gutsey move.

Personally I'd allow them the +20 bonus (from running) to their Bs if the chargee decided to shoot the runee in melee combat rather than allow melee ranged point blank or moving out of combat.

New stuff from deathwatch:

The move action (half or full), allows a character to "engage that opponent in melee", if their move ends them up adjacent to an enemy. If they run, there is no such option (being adjacent is not grounds for engagement).

So this may or may not be a clarification to the DH rules, but its something in writing.