Disengaging from combat - any rules?

[dazzah]

Can I ask how people are playing RQII with fleeing from combat.

Does it cost a CA to disengaged? and if so how does that work?

I think i remember RQ3 rules as
If you spend an entire combat round disengaging and only defending or evading, you can then use your fully sprint movement the next round to flee without a free attack from your opponent?
If you turn and flee without disengaging your opponent gets a free attack?

Is this correct way to play - because im from 3rd edition RQ where CA weren`t used Im having problems applying a sensible rule and theres no rule about it in the book.

Any help be much appreciated.

 

[AxeMurder]

I've been playing that it's a CA and an opposed dodge roll vs who you're disengaging from.

 

[Mikko Leho]

See page 92 for rules for disengaging. There is also the combat manoeuvre Change range, which enables you to disengage from combat.

 

[Deleriad]

Disengaging is in the rules but a bit buried under closing. If you use the change range combat action the your opponent can try to oppose it with evade to prevent it from happening or can take a swing at you. Change range allows you to disengage.

Similarly the combat manoeuvre, change range, allows you to disengage if you so choose.

 

[dazzah]

Thanks you. Got that now.

As a final request can I ask on disengaging it says in the book"..opponent must decided whether he wants to remain in combat or take an attack. Either option also requires a CA to use." then the next paragraph says "Ig the opponent decided to use the disengageing action to take a free attack instead he resists the evade opposed test with his combat skill..."

So does the attack cost a CA or not, as it seems to contradict itself, and also can the "free" attack be parried or evaded? or is that what it means by free? I assume it cannot mean that as they will always get a combat action with attack vs no parry and so can select change range and so always stop the disengagement as well as attack!

Thanks
Im determined to get my head around this rulebook!

 

[Mongoose Pete]

As a final request can I ask on disengaging it says in the book"..opponent must decided whether he wants to remain in combat or take an attack. Either option also requires a CA to use." then the next paragraph says "Ig the opponent decided to use the disengageing action to take a free attack instead he resists the evade opposed test with his combat skill..."

So does the attack cost a CA or not, as it seems to contradict itself, and also can the "free" attack be parried or evaded? or is that what it means by free? I assume it cannot mean that as they will always get a combat action with attack vs no parry and so can select change range and so always stop the disengagement as well as attack!

When it says 'free' it means that you get to attack an extra time out of the normal turn sequence. It still costs a CA.

In this situation the 'free' attack cannot be additionally parried as the disengaging opponent is already trying to use Evade to avoid the blow (by backpeddling or diving clear of the engagement). If the evade succeeds he gets clear. If he fails he suffers for it. And yes, if the attacker manages to gain a LoS over the disengager, then he can select the Change Range CM to keep within range.

 

[dazzah]

Thanks Pete, That makes sense now! I can tick that off as "ah got it!".

 

[dazzah]

Can I clarify a problem that occured last night with our group.

Lets say A and B are evenly matched with same DEX etc. A has 2 weapons so has 3CA and B 2CA. Both weapons have similar reach.

"A" wishes to flee from combat

In the round "A" attacked and "B" parried. "B" then attacked and "A" parried. "A" states he wishes to flee as quickly as possible, by sprinting and dropping weapon if he has too. As B has no CA left he cannot attack A as he sprints away. (Old RQ versions had free attacks that would apply)
I clearly need a rule to penalise against this. ANy ideas?

Also if "A" stated he was using his final CA to disengaged he would automatically succeed anyhow as "B" has no CA to spend either attacks or opposing the disengage! He would then be out of reach of "B" and next round could escape unless "B" acted first and spend a CA closing (which B could also spend a CA trying to resist) This means it is much better for combatants wishing to leave combat to similar flee on their last CA.

Any one have a understanding of turning and fleeing and what rules shuld be applied.

 

[Deleriad]

Can I clarify a problem that occured last night with our group.

Lets say A and B are evenly matched with same DEX etc. A has 2 weapons so has 3CA and B 2CA. Both weapons have similar reach.

"A" wishes to flee from combat

In the round "A" attacked and "B" parried. "B" then attacked and "A" parried. "A" states he wishes to flee as quickly as possible, by sprinting and dropping weapon if he has too. As B has no CA left he cannot attack A as he sprints away. (Old RQ versions had free attacks that would apply)
I clearly need a rule to penalise against this. ANy ideas?

This is an outcome of variable CAs. Basically, A turned away B's attack and while B was on the back foot, turned and ran. The bottom line is that an extra CA is a *huge* advantage. If you have a shield and you make all your skill rolls then you'll always be able to do something extra and that's embedded in the rules. I wouldn't try to penalise the shield carrier, after all A has successfully executed a plan. He pushed B back with an attack, held B's counter-attack with his shield and had enough of an advantage to get away.

 

[Denalor]

One question here.

Regardless whether I'm trying to close in or to disengage.
Assuming the opponent chooses to make an attack and not oppose Evade with his evade to determine distance.
I am then not allowed to spend another CA to parry this attack, right ?
Hadn't realized that

Also, what actually happens if my Evade roll is a failure ? Wil lI have succeeded in closing in/disengaging anyway ?

I currently envisionaging a short sword wielder trying to close in with a great sword wielder. He spens a CA to close in. Foe opts to attack, Evade is a failure while attack is a success. Then the short sword juts got a big slash and has not even succeeded in closing in.

When I think of this, it appears as the only logical resolution of this situation, but that really makes weapon reach far more important !

BTW, is it actually possible to close in anyways ?
What I'm trying to say is this:

Suppose a halberdier is facing a great sword wielder. That's VL and L reach.
Could the great sword close in to M range (which would have no effect on him sincethat is still less than two steps from his L reach) and thus prevent the halberdier from parrying (since M would be 2 steps from VL reach) ?

 

[Deleriad]

Regardless whether I'm trying to close in or to disengage.
Assuming the opponent chooses to make an attack and not oppose Evade with his evade to determine distance.
I am then not allowed to spend another CA to parry this attack, right ?

That's correct.

Also, what actually happens if my Evade roll is a failure ? Wil lI have succeeded in closing in/disengaging anyway ?

Yes.

I currently envisionaging a short sword wielder trying to close in with a great sword wielder. He spens a CA to close in. Foe opts to attack, Evade is a failure while attack is a success. Then the short sword juts got a big slash and has not even succeeded in closing in.

Basically, when someone tries to close with you you have two options. You can try to prevent it from happening by using Evade or you can swing at the opponent on the way in.

If you choose the swing option then:
a) resolve the opponent's evade versus your attack. If you win the contest, you hit the opponent. If you don't win, you miss (just like a regular attack vs evade)
b) if the opponent is still alive, you are closed with automatically.

That's my understanding of it.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

If you choose the swing option then:
a) resolve the opponent's evade versus your attack. If you win the contest, you hit the opponent. If you don't win, you miss (just like a regular attack vs evade)
b) if the opponent is still alive, you are closed with automatically.

That's my understanding of it.

Deleriad is correct.

If you take the opportunity to strike, unless you manage to inflict a knock-back or take out a leg, you won't prevent a determined person from closing in on you. In real life the better option is often to sidestep or back away.

The evade roll is there to see if you were agile enough to either a) avoid the opponent's weapon as you stepped in, or b) managed to rush him before he backed off.

 

[Denalor]

Thanks guys.

I fear this might have gone under:

Suppose a halberdier is facing a great sword wielder. That's VL and L reach.
Could the great sword close in to M range (which would have no effect on him since that is still less than two steps from his L reach) and thus prevent the halberdier from parrying (since M would be 2 steps from VL reach) ?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Yes.

 

[Denalor]

Great !

Thanks again

 

[Deleriad]

Yes.

That's surprising. By that analogy. any weapon that is only one size smaller than another weapon can close; negating the whole point of the 2 size difference in the rules.

E.g. Warsword (reach M) vs (Longsword reach L). Warsword closes to S range which means that the Longsword now suffers the effect of being closed.

 

[dazzah]

and of course if a longsword user can be closed upon with a Warsword, he can disengage with the warsword to range XL so he can attack freely but the warsword is kept at a distance and cannot reach him to attack.

I think its too complicted to house rule so just dont allow it as an option.

I found my players were "dancing around" even with the 2 size rules with Enemy closing, player resists, CAs spent, trying again another CA spent. Then another player states Ill attack that monster now its out of CA and so spends 1CA attacking with a modifer as creature not facing him.

I did rule as although it bunched close fight it would take 1CA to move 3-4m that would allow him to attack.

INTERESTINGLY the rule book example fight seems to be very generous. In the example, Thrace states he is going to move around the 3 enemies to try and flank them, and on his first CA changes him mind to attack, but has already moved and flanked them, so has moved w/o penelty to CA. I thought it was quite clear that you couldn`t move your full movement alowance freely every round and also attack.

IS that an error?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Yes.

That's surprising. By that analogy. any weapon that is only one size smaller than another weapon can close; negating the whole point of the 2 size difference in the rules.

E.g. Warsword (reach M) vs (Longsword reach L). Warsword closes to S range which means that the Longsword now suffers the effect of being closed.

Bugger. Sorry about that, I'm trying to finish off April's book and wasn't concentrating when skim reading the forums. I should have said no.

Apologies. Need some extra sleep I think...