Hello, i am having some issues understanding how disengaging from combat work.

Setting, a elf scout is bieing mauled by a hungry squig. the scout wants to disengage and use a move maneouver to shoot the squig (his bow was already in hand)

So he uses a Maneouver to disenguage, a maneouver to move to close range and then an action card to shoot the squig (suffering 1 or 2 extra fatigue depending on rules/ house rules etc.) Is this correct, or does he need to use a stunt action or opposed action to disenguage. The book says that the player must use a disenguage action in order to move out of combat or they may be attacked. So are no dice rolls involved. I may be overthinking this but it does confuse me a little.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

Bledthig

Let me try to assist by breaking the example down into steps and then examining the mechanics.

Bledthiig said:

Characters may perform 1 free Maneuver per turn and use 1 Action Card. Additional Maneuvers performed in the same turn cost 1 Fatigue each.

0) At the start of the round, the Scout and the squig are currently Engaged with each other. The Scout hs his bow drawn and ready.

1) The Scout performs 1 Maneuver (his free Maneuver) to move away from the squig. This moves the Scout from Engaged range to Close range to the squig (a character who is no longer Engaged with a target is considered to be at Close range).

2) As he is no longer Engaged with the squig, the Scout may use his 1 Action Card to perform an available Ranged Attack action that uses his bow.

The Scout need take no other Maneuvers if his objective is only to Disengage and attack the squig. 1 movement Maneuver will take him out of range for Melee Attack actions and will allow him to perform Ranged Attack actions. If the Scout chose to perform further Maneuvers that turn, each Maneuver imposes 1 Fatigue upon him.

The "they may be attacked" verbiage of the Disengaging rules is misleading. A character *must* spend 1 Maneuver to move away from an Engagement, which then places them at Close range. There is no risk (unless you wanted to create your own house-rule) of being attacked when Disengaging and there is no Skill roll or Action Card involved in doing so.

Hope that helps!

bloody sun boy has the rules correct.

i've had a number of occasions where a weak willed enemy like an ungor has wanted to run from an engagement. my players and i weren't too keen on the idea that the enemy could simply disengage and flee especially if the players were between the enemy and the exit.

i've tried a couple of options to deal with the situation, i think perform a stunt action is the best.

as a result i'm inclined to apply the same rule to players wishing to disengage.

if a player says to me they want to disengage and then shoot i have them use the 'perform a stunt' action but treat it as a manoeuvre. they describe to me how they intend to disengage, shoving an enemy means athletics, feinting means guile, using the ebb an flow of the fight is weapon skill, intimidate to create space has been done. depending on the results they can then attempt a follow up action, sometimes the perform a stunt results apply extra misfortune or difficulty to the follow up action. had one situation where the perform a stunt was successful but had a chaos star. so the player disengaged but the enemy had grabbed the players crossbow in the process.

Nice! i like that! and thanks to you both for your responses.

Bledthig

I think there's only one minor terminology use that I would correct in Bloody Sun Boy's answer. It's not a big deal but I find it helps keep some issues clear. Engaged isn't really a range, it's a state or a condition. When you're engaged with an enemy you are also at close range. Thus when you disengage you don't move to close range, you're still at close range, you're just no longer engaged with an enemy.

Like I said, it's really minor, but when you get into some of the rules and wordings.

RARodger said:

And you're probably technically correct in your application of the term as an artifact in the RAW (I don't have my books available to reference). Conceptually, I find it more clear and helpful to think of Engaged as being a separate "range increment" of sorts since it requires a Maneuver to enter or leave the Engaged state, the most logical explanation of which being "closing the gap" between you and a foe (also implied by the rules concerning viability of Melee and Ranged Attack actions). It implies the need to move toward or away from your target, which makes it helpful to think of Engaging as "movement". As such, a "map", if you will, of Range Increments in the game would look like:

Extreme -> Long -> Medium -> Close -> Engaged

Honestly, I think this is best represented by an idea I proposed of turning these abstract ranges in a system of "Zones". Characters within the same "Zone" are all at Close range to one another. Characters at Close range may then spend 1 Maneuver to Engage any target in that Zone. This helps demonstrate your clarification while illustrating that being Engaged is "closer than Close".

i dont remember if its in RAW or not, but foes that your engaged with can choose to burn maneuvers to follow a disengaging fighter.

Corrupted by DD AOO rules as they are, my players constantly ask for a free attack on disengaging enemies, do you give one as a gm ?

Hurlanc said:

You can only maneuver on your turn.

Hurlanc said:

The maneuver is supposed to mitigate that (kind of like taking the five-foot-step rather than just bolting). What you may consider is to allow people to leave an engagement without a maneuver, but then allow the free attack.

Engaged is in fact a range band. It is essentially "within whisper/touching distance". Close is approximately "in the same room". Bloody Sun Boy has the ranges correct.

I agree with BSB as well, if you consider "ranges" as "zones". Using the location cards (or similar marker) helps.

dvang said:

It's a range that you only have to spend a maneuver to move out of if there is an enemy with you.