If I understand correctly, you can use an action card (melee strike) and then use your free manoeuver to disengage from your opponent, brining you to "close" distance.

Now I know this has little effect game-wise, as your opponent can just follow you in his turn with his free Manoeuver, but do people use special rules, like free strikes etc...?

I don't really object much to it being possible, just wondered... also because my PC's will face a flying opponent, and he can technically strike, then fly up, then fly back, strike and disengage again... so only ranged could get him. Would though like my PC's to have another option of hitting back.

The maneuver to disengage allows you to move to close range safely - no free attack. Where it's handy is if you use a card that grants you a bonus maneuver on a boon so you attack, disengage to close as your bonus maneuver then use your free maneuver to move to medium. This forces your opponent to take fatigue (which translates to a wound for most npc's) to move to close or spend a maneuver to draw a ready a ranged weapon.

Now for an aerial attacker if they move into engagement range and attack I'd assume they are hovering or doing a flyby so either their free maneuver can bring them into range and then attack in which case they'd still be in range when it's their opponents turn to attack back. Or they maneuver out of range in which case they are at close range in the air so their opponent would have to attack with ranged weapons.

Kryyst said:

I think I'd rule that close range is always engageable, ie not engaged but flying close enough to the ground that they could be engaged. If a flyer wants to fly-by like this, then he would have to reach medium range, every turn, which would soon get him fatigued, and sounds like a decent approximation of how that sort of fight might go irl.

Because my group has an Ironbreaker with a tower shield and the saga of grungi going every fight - I use the rule exactly as written. It takes a maneuver to disengage from a foe...so if there are five foes about you, all engaged, it takes 5 maneuvers to disengage. If there are 3 friendlies and 5 foes in the engagment, then it would take 2 maneuvers to disengage (the amount by which you are outnumbered).

However, I would allow a player to use an Action to disengage from any number of foes with banes causing fatigue and chaos stars causing wounds on the way out. Usually, expecially for my rank 3 group, this isn't THAT bad, but certainly COULD be costly.

Should be noted, I do no do the same to engage...it is simply one maneuver to engage any number of folks (least, how I run it).

Judex said:

That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the rules. While it goes against the examples and other text around it. I can see some logic in it as it would making a mobbing effect far more dangerous.

Aye, and also makes all them "extra maneuver" effects much more potent.

An "engagement" may contain many foes. Still, it cost only 1 manoeuver to disengage from that engagement/from all of them.

This question has yet been answered by the designers. Doing otherwise is an houserule (and it may be a good one )