I apologize for asking, I'm a Edge of the Empire noob and wasn't in the beta. I have the Beginner Box but haven't run an adventure yet.

I'm wondering if the movement during combat could be abused to avoid fighting melee opponents (say, Gamorrions).

So, say the enemy is at medium distance.

They rush into close, then engaged. Their turn is over. IF they can use 2 strain (converted into damage because they don't have strain), they have suffered 2 damage.

PC moves from engaged to close. They use 2 strain to go from close to medium. THEN they shoot with their action.

Repeat till enemy is dead.

Again, sorry if I haven't figured things out, new to the game but testing it in a week and a half!

The melee guy gets an attack off in your situation.

The GM should also be taking the area into account. Few fights take place in a featureless void. Eventually someone is going to run out of room to backup.

I'm not sure how the finished product is, but as a GM I'd rule that any penalty for ranged is applied if you are in or began your turn in engaged range.

If players consistently did this, I'd start tracking strain for npcs. The Strain=Damage rule is a shorthand to make GMs' lives easier, not for players to down opponents through running.

On the other side, I'm not too worried about this. There is a cost to bringing a knife to a gun-fight.

PCs get one free manoeuvre each turn, and may perform a second one for two strain, with a max of two manoeuvres per turn. (P13 Beginner game rulebook - Manoeuvre limitations)

Also, P14 Actions - You generally get one action per turn and P14 Exchanging an action for a manoeuvre - A character may exchange his action for a manoeuvre , but still not perform more than 2 per turn.

So, in your example the PC would use 1 manoeuvre to move out of combat (and GM rules for a free hit possibly?) , and then could either shoot (their one action), or exchange their action for a manoeuvre take 2 strain and move short-medium, and end their go.

So as I understand it, the PCs wouldn't be able to do what you suggest.

As for the NPCs moving, using strain/damage, I don't think that's covered in that rulebook. As the GM I wouldn't do it myself. I'd move them Medium-Short and Shoot, or Aim as my manoeuvre and shoot as the action.

Only just picked up the core rulebook yesterday, so this might be covered now. I'm also happy to be corrected as I'm not expert, it's just how I understand it!

You have to spend 2 maneuvers to move out of engaged with an opponent.

1 to disengage

1 to move to short range

so they can't do as you described p202-203 in the core rulebook under Move

You have to spend 2 maneuvers to move out of engaged with an opponent.

1 to disengage

1 to move to short range

so they can't do as you described p202-203 in the core rulebook under Move

Actually, 202-203 says pretty explicitly that one maneuver changes range from "engaged" to "short."

Which, if you think about it, makes sense; if the character disengages, what other range band could they be in aside from short?

You have to spend 2 maneuvers to move out of engaged with an opponent.

1 to disengage

1 to move to short range

so they can't do as you described p202-203 in the core rulebook under Move

Actually, 202-203 says pretty explicitly that one maneuver changes range from "engaged" to "short."

Which, if you think about it, makes sense; if the character disengages, what other range band could they be in aside from short?

reread the section titled engage or disengage from an opponent

edit : my bad.. weird.... it say you must perform this maneuver prior to moving to another location.. then in the next sentance says it moves you to short... I prefer my interpretation ...

I think even with an exploit like this, you have to consider that the strain is going to add up pretty quickly. Most character builds won't be able to keep this tactic up for very long. So yes, I would say that sure, your character can dart in and do these little hit and run maneuvers, flitting about the fat, slow, gammorreans....for a while. Eventually that strain pool is going to get awfully shallow, and itll only take one hit. I'd also have the Gamorreans do something like trying to flank or encricle him in a situation like this, where yes, he can move out of range of ONE of them, but not both.

Sorry for the double post here. Internets are on the fritz

Also for what its worth Minions "...cannot volintarily suffer strain." (p.390)

So if the PC is engaged with the Gamorean and maneuveres to disengage to short and then suffers 2 strain to maneuver to medium then the best the Gamorean can do is maneuver to short next turn and wave its axe around threateningly.

Wraith428

EXACTLY what I was worried about.

I like the idea that you have to use a maneuver to disengage, then a 2nd to move to Short Range, but... that's not in the rules I re-read that too... looks like the maneuver disengages you AND moves you to short range.

Also for what its worth Minions "...cannot volintarily suffer strain." (p.390)

So if the PC is engaged with the Gamorean and maneuveres to disengage to short and then suffers 2 strain to maneuver to medium then the best the Gamorean can do is maneuver to short next turn and wave its axe around threateningly.

Wraith428

EXACTLY what I was worried about.

I like the idea that you have to use a maneuver to disengage, then a 2nd to move to Short Range, but... that's not in the rules I re-read that too... looks like the maneuver disengages you AND moves you to short range.

Also for what its worth Minions "...cannot volintarily suffer strain." (p.390)

So if the PC is engaged with the Gamorean and maneuveres to disengage to short and then suffers 2 strain to maneuver to medium then the best the Gamorean can do is maneuver to short next turn and wave its axe around threateningly.

Wraith428

The best way to think of it, engaged is more like a status or relationship between combatants within short range. When you disengage, you are just severing that relationship.

EXACTLY what I was worried about.

I like the idea that you have to use a maneuver to disengage, then a 2nd to move to Short Range, but... that's not in the rules I re-read that too... looks like the maneuver disengages you AND moves you to short range.

Also for what its worth Minions "...cannot volintarily suffer strain." (p.390)

So if the PC is engaged with the Gamorean and maneuveres to disengage to short and then suffers 2 strain to maneuver to medium then the best the Gamorean can do is maneuver to short next turn and wave its axe around threateningly.

Wraith428

Actually (and I am going from Beta rules here, page 131), it DOES cost a maneuver to disengage an opponent. So it would cost 2 maneuvers to go from engaged to medium. It reads "Once engaged with a target, a character MUST preform a maneuver to disengage..." It does NOT cost to disengage from an ALLY. I think this is where some of the confusion lies.

this is when a good GM brings in enemies from different sides, uses smaller rooms and introduces the crew to cliff-edges. not all the time, because sometimes baiting and kiting are viable tactics. add in some NPCs with blasters, or use the same tactic against the PCs in their fights.

it should also be said that by definition, power-gamers will use the rules to milk them for every possible advantage. that's what they do.

it should also be said that by definition, power-gamers will use the rules to milk them for every possible advantage. that's what they do.

Amen. I have a buddy/player that WILL find and exploit this first game. I will have to be creative and throw some unexpected situations at him, as suggested here. Maybe take one melee opponent away and add an blaster welding assassin who pops up behind the PCs...

Just wait until he gets his hands on a jury-rigged heavy blaster rifle

Just wait until he gets his hands on a jury-rigged heavy blaster rifle

I know! I am gonna have that sucker malfunction EVERY chance that I can... LOL

Now I'm just picturing my girlfriend's Twi'lek scoundrel running across the tatooine dunes being chased by a bunch of Gammoreans running as fast as their stubby legs can, panting and squealing as she guns them down, laughing and sweating bullets because of the heat and the strain of outrunning them all.

And remember, though they can't suffer strain to get an extra maneuver, you CAN exhange their action for one. And, you can spend PC threats and despairs on free out-of-turn maneuvers too. So, when your close-range gammorean squad takes a nice shot to the snout and one of them goes down, but the PC rolled three threat, suddenly the other gammoreans get a burst of angry porcine speed from seeing their friend go down and use the free maneuver they got to engage her!

Isn't part of being a good GM (granted, I'm new to this) about designing a scenario that doesn't NEED to be "power gamed"? This isn't a game to "win" or "lose" but a story to tell with dice. As a GM, its my job to not only make it harder for a player to break the system but also to introduce a story or scenario where they don't feel the need to break it. Just easy enough to make it beatable (assuming their rolls don't screw them) but also challenging enough that they don't get bored.

I have a power gamer in my group (I have more than one, but the other one was former D&D so he had roleplaying in the bag). I knew it would be tough to keep him from finding loopholes. Through a combination of him being extra cheesy (he does that with new games until he has the strategy down) and me providing positive reinforcement, he learned how to get bonuses within the system! He played Lowhhrick the premade and would describe his attacks and actions in amazing theatric deatail and I would give him a boost die for it. He was getting into the heart of the game and was, subsequently, being rewarded for it by getting to roll more dice and kill more stuff!

There's so much flexibility in this system, there's dozens of ways to lead players down the path you want them to go. Use the narrative dice, use the secondary icons (threat/advantage) and eventually, they will learn that you don't need to break the game to have a good time. As long as everyone is having fun - you're winning the game.

If you end up with players doing this I would have ranged combatants with the melee ones plus equip them with blaster pistols or something. They might not be that great with them but it gives them the option for ranged.

Also take into consideration that if they keep suffering strain it would be easy to bring up a ranged attacker to short range and use a weapon with a stun setting. If you manage to do that I think they would think twice about trying to kite the melee's.

Kiting is an issue in other RPGs too. In many systems, a character with faster movement can kite indefinitely, provided they have at least a circular room or open space of a certain minimum size.

And while yes, its not very RPGish, its regularly used by players (and, I suppose, GMs if they can) in order to "win". For players, since it reduces the risk their beloved character takes, its very enticing.

Some RPG systems have solved the issue, and I heavily suggest taking a page from their book, namely "free strikes" or "opportunity attacks" when not disengaging properly.

About Disengage in EotE: Its utterly pointless, and thus I believe its not intended to be move+disengage for 1 maneuver, simply because it would not make any sense to have an "engaged" status then. You might as well do away with the maneuver, as you can apparently simply walk out of melee with no specific disadvantages whatsoever. I believe this to be an oversight in editing, as it makes no sense whatsoever in terms of game design.

I dont really see this as an exploit. Sure, you can kite for a while if you have enough strain, but eventually that runs out and if it does you pass out. It also isnt guaranteed to recover at all once the fighting is over, since you only regain it for successes.

When a PC moves twice and shoots I usually penalize him with a setback for having to "run and gun". It also be easy to simply use whatever Threat he has (if any) when he shot to increase the strain he took, thus further discouraging constant use of this tactic.

That is, ofc, if the other methods of more enemies/flankers/etc that was already mentioned dont solve the problem as well.

Adding a setback die in addition to suffer strain is a double penalty for something that per RAW is allowed and already penalised by suffering strain. I'm not keen on that idea, I'd rather spend Threats they roll on incurring setback dice on future checks