The "problems" that Hellbore is having with the Disengage rules are all very realistic ones and IMHO, not really problems at all.

I have done several martial arts (including S.C.A. and rapier fighting) and studied warfare tactics, and from all that I have been taught and experienced, turning tail and running is a very bad thing 99% of the time. You will get smacked in the back.

In Dark Heresy, there are options such as Knock-Down that will make for a safer full-move retreat. As others have pointed out, Disengage is very useful in the right circumstances, and realisticaly, turning and running full out will only get you smacked (which is how the rules work).

"I disengage and move 2m around the corner of the corridor". There you go now is that enemy going to follow you, or take his time to ready a ranged weapon, prime a grenade what, because he can't charge you?

So every time the adept of the group doesn't want to fight, there's a corner within 2m? Also, when a character decides to retreat from a melee, there's a good chance his enemy wants to continue with it, so what prohibits him from using a half action to move up to the character and attack him again with his other half action?

The "problems" that Hellbore is having with the Disengage rules are all very realistic ones and IMHO, not really problems at all.

I have done several martial arts (including S.C.A. and rapier fighting) and studied warfare tactics, and from all that I have been taught and experienced, turning tail and running is a very bad thing 99% of the time. You will get smacked in the back.

That's good for you, but disengaging is not "turning tail and running". That would be using a normal movement action to get away, which is duly penalized with a free attack. Disengaging isn't fleeing, it's retreating. If it's worse than fleeing, then that should tell us something about how well that rule is thought out.

I like the idea of making movement-related actions more expensive in the next round for the enemy, meaning he can move up to his half speed with a full action since he's caught on the wrong foot by the retreat and can't immediately follow up. This has the effect of not hindering the enemy if he decides to just attack your buddies remaining in the melee, but not make the disengaging action completely useless.

The argument should be turned around to get a better understanding. Lets say I'm trying to engage an opponent who is trying to get away. With the proposed system, there is no way I could keep him engaged. Now that doesn't seem right either.

As it stands a character has two options when trying to get out of a melee: turn and run (suffering a free hit) or taking a shorter move back, but still being on the defensive.
That is not only realistic, but standard for many RPGs.

RancidTwinkie said:

That shouldn't be how it works. As was said above, Disengage is a manoeuvre designed to get you out of combat. Turning tail and run should incur a penalty, but disengage should not allow your opponent an advantage over you in the next round, but it does.

My tweak was that they lose a half action. They may still make a normal move and you have only made a standard move due to the rules of the disengage. With a half action you could fire a pistol. In the original disengage you could quick draw a full auto weapon and get a point blank range bonus on the full auto spray.

The point is, you shouldn't have a combat action that is described as one thing, titled one thing, but does not deliver on it. It's not a disengage it's a 'temporary reprieve from combat until your opponent charges you next turn'. A Dark Heresy round is 5 seconds long. What this means is that Disengage will take you out of combat for maybe 2.5 seconds. I would hardly call that a DISENGAGE from combat. Most sword duels have PAUSES that last longer than that.

Having done some sword fighting, if you push someone onto their backfoot and turn and bolt, you are guaranteed to be able to put distance between the two of you unless they are an exceptionally fast runner.

Your average person has a Charge distance of 9 metres and a full move of 6 metres. Disengage allows you to move up to your half move rate after disengaging as a full round action. This means if you disengage you end up 3 metres away from your opponent. You can't charge at 3 metres, but you can still enter combat by making a half move and striking.

The faster your oponent is, the further away they can move during a Disengage. This means that FASTER people disengaging are penalised MORE because they leave further distance for the opponent to Charge. Even someone with a AgB2 would still get a charge against a disengaging enemy with AgB5, because their charge range is 3x2=6 metres, 1 metre longer than their opponent can move. You'd need an AgB7 to actually move out of charge range of an extremely slow person.

Otherwise your AgB penalises you by being higher.

Hellebore

I've been tempted to borrow an idea from the Star Wars Saga Edition rules in regards to this.

Make Disengage a half action.

In Saga Edition, Disengage and Charge are both Half Actions (or equivalent); Charge only lets you move your normal speed, but otherwise confers the same +2 to attack/-2 to defence modifers that charging always confers in d20 system games. The main thing that reducing them to half actions does is increase mobility - getting in and out of close combat is easy, and some character builds are even developed to take advantage of that (such as those Jedi who fight like Yoda - leaping and spinning and generally darting in and out of striking distance). Throw cover and similar terrain into the mix, and nobody stops moving during a fight.

Hellebore said:

Actually, the way it is designed, Disengage lets you back away from the your immediate close combat enemies. Wether you get to leave combat altogether will become clear over then next few rounds.

Personally, I like Disengage as it stands. It is an option that on it's own is "equal" to the other movement options.

If you need to back away and shoot the enemy you need to make a move action (a half action), but then you must accept the risk of getting hit by one of his attacks. If you really need to get away you can run and accept the increased risk (your enemy gets a +20 to hit).

The thing is to take into account the surroundings and your allies and pick the right action for the situation.

-K

One option is to take Assassin's strike. Lets you move your speed if you succeed on test and then take a half-action to move your speed. Should work since the first is part of the attack action and not a move action.

It's hard to run in a one on one fight. Watch any bar brawl where one combatant runs from the other. Unless friends step in to hold the attacker back there's very little chance of actually getting away. I've seen fights cross 2-3 city blocks as one combatant disengages and the other just runs right back up to them and continues the assault.

Regardless of reality etc my big problem is that that with these rules an adept (or other non combat nerd) can nutralise the likes of a genestealer (provided it cansurivive being charged by it) by constantly robbing it of half it's actions when it tries to engage. Indeffinately and without a roll.

If this would be anoying for the GM's lovingly created creatures imagine how a melee based character would feel chasing an NPC around all day.

Face Eater said:

You shouldn't need to roll to run away, and trying to run away will definitely make it a bit harder for someone to kill you. Honestly, it's hard enough for non-combat characters to survive as it is, disengage is hardly tipping the scales.

Mark It Zero said:

Yes, in fact, you should. You should definitely have to roll to turn your back and hotfoot it away from somebody who's been going into you for the last six seconds with a melee weapon. Or, perhaps more correctly, they need to roll, but somebody rolls to see if you don't take a knife in your posterior. Withdrawing in a controlled, defensive way is useless if you cannot harry your foe enough that they can't (or don't want to) chase after you. It's true in movies, it's true in books, it's true in very nearly every game I've played, and it's true in reality. Why wouldn't it be true here?

Pneumonica said:

I said nothing about not giving the attacker a free attack if their opponent turns their back. I'm quite fine with that rule. All I said was "You shouldn't need to roll to run away." which applies whether you are disengaging or not. If a combatant chooses to run away they just do, no dice necessary. That's not to say the attacker won't have an opportunity to take advantage of the opening.

Oh. My bad. I misinterpreted your statement then. Mea culpa .

Pneumonica said:

No worries, I might have missed your point just a bit myself anyway.

I think I am missing the point of this too, unless it is "brutal close quarters combat can be brutal and occasionally hurts a great deal."

Maybe it is that I am blessed with a table full of clever and reasonably tactical-minded players, but I have seen (and used with some choice NPCs) rather effective uses of the Disengage action. In one on one fights, yes this action is a bad choice barring special terrain or other unusual circumstances. Now in group combats, where there are multiple acolytes and more than one baddie (you know, most of the battles you are likely to run in this game) and people involved in the fighting are not cookie-cutter identical templates then a well timed Disengage action can save a character, allow a dramatic villain escape or otherwise set a teammate up for really brutal retaliation on your would-be-killer.

The mention of the use of clear and measured maps is of HUGE value for all sorts of fun stunts in combat, and certainly not to the exclusion of this one. Terrain can be exploited, used as cover, used as dramatic props and a great many circumstancial fight complications that can come up when high tech warriors on a holy cause do battle with all manner of things better left unknown.

Some very clever uses of Disengage I have seen in my game (since it is the "useless" combat maneuver of debate):

Guardsman locked in melee with a nasty tech-abomination Disengages to get free for a few seconds.... While the Assassin unloads full-auto into it!

Techpriest with Maglev talents that is getting the worst of a two-on-one melee uses Disengage to desperately wiggle free of the fight for a few seconds.... To throw herself down an open elevator shaft!

Cleric (squishy Chantryhouse background) caught without armour and picking up someone else's weapon is stuck fighting with a different tech-abomination as before (spoiler info to detail more) with high damage (they have punched through plaster and concrete walls) but relatively low WS and have tended to resort to "All Out Attack" to hit (no big loss, since they had a Ag20 and no dodge skill!). Cleric makes timely use of Disengage to deny both All-Out AND charge options to the baddie while freeing up room for a Guardsman to wade in and smash it with a greathammer!

Had a fight where the regular assassin for our team was teamed up with another assassin (guest-starring player that night). Our regular is a two-pistols John Woo type and the guest-assassin preffers rifles of the sniper and auto variety. Stuck in against two opponents that kept trying to force melee, they made a disturbing art of taking turns dancing in and out of melee with judicious use of Disengage and the occasional gamble on simply moving away. Each would lure their opponent to charge them, then Disengage so the other could shoot. It was simply beautiful to watch.

If you are in a one on one melee and the opponent is reasonably close to your movement speed then this is obviously of much reduced value. In those cases I recommend killing them, as they usually stop swinging at that point. Usually.... Either that or refuse to fight fair! That's right, fight mean and to win if something horrible is making you fight it! Genestealers do NOT obey Oxford rules for gentlemanly combat, even if the occasional noble-born Imperial Navy officer does. There are no "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalties in prosecuting the Holy Ordos sacred duties. Got a problem? Talk to the rosette!

Flipside note: There can be a price for effectively blocking another's use of Disengage or similar. The acolytes were ambushed by an enemy agent controlling some "bad things" meant to do harm to our heroes. After making quick work of the agent's charges they swiftly hemmed him in and prevented all avenues of evasion and escape. Convinced that there was no hope of escape and unaware that they intended live capture the desperate agent decided it was best to "take some of them with him", pulled all his spare ammunition from under his jacket, pressed his weapon up against it and pulled the trigger. BOOM! (Agent was part of a cult and knew there are sometimes worse things than death...)

Post is already a bit on the long side, so I will leave the poor dead horse alone for now.

I find the Disengage rule a very interesting tactical alternative in the game system, it is indeed one of few abilities that _requires_ the party to cooperate in a clever way. It does not require a roll at all. And I'd much rather be charged by a 'stealer, for one attack that i _might_ be able to parry, than just stand still (even in all out defense) and take the 4 (or 3 or 5 depending on interpretation) attacks from a full round attack action. Comparing to my experience from historical european bastard sword fighting and numerous dirty asian melee techniques, the rule is maybe a bit too forgiving, because it contains no moment of risk at all. It is a very rare situation that I feel confident moving away from a fight, unles I have mates stepping in for me.

Hellebore said:

If an ally of yours (preferably someone better at melee than you) is already in combat with the same person as you, disengaging forces the opponent to chose between:

- Taking a free attack from your ally to make a single attack against you.

- Attacking your ally instead of you

If you have a ranged ally who gets a turn between you and your target, disengaging lets your ally attack your target without the penalty for being in close combat.

If you are in a 1 on 1 and disengage, but stay within 4 meters, the enemy can't charge. So they spend a half action moving towards you, so they are limited to a half action attack. Lets list the actions that disengage will prevent the enemy taking against you:

- Half action aim. Effectively this gives them a -10 to attack, though the -20 from defensive stance would be better.

- Swift attack. You just guaranteed that one of their attacks doesn't happen. If the target has 40 WS he will get the same average number of hits per turn as if you used defensive stance. Greater than 40 and disengage is better. But this is without accounting for parrying or blademaster (both tip the balance towards disengage) and defensive stance still gives them a chance to land two attacks in one round.

- Lightning attack. Disengage means that two attacks stop. The break-even point for disengage vs defensive stance is the enemy having 30 WS, which is below the minimum requirement for swift attack (a requirement for lightning attack).

- Dual Strike. It won't change their average number of hits. But it will reduce the damage you attack when they do hit.

- Attacking with both weapons.

It won't save you on its own. But if your allies are close enough (say, engaged in melee a few meters away) it can keep you alive for long enough for them to save you.

If an Adept running from a Genestealer is a problem, have the Genestealer Grappe him. Grapple is either a half-action or part of a charge. It can be done with natural weapons at no penalty vs armed opponents. It cannot be dodged or parried, although the opponent can use a Reaction to test agility to avoid it if he has one. Once the enemy is grappled, it is an opposed Strength test to do your natural weapon's damage with no chance to dodge.

Grapple is easy to overlook, but it's one of the strongest weapons in the melee-based creature arsenal.