Disengaging

[Chris Rice]

I'm getting ready to play some basic Melee combats using the original unvarnished rules for the first time in years. However, whilst reading through my copy of Melee from 1977 (first edition?) I note that if a figure with a higher DX disengages from a lower DX figure, that figure does not get any chance to hit. Looking at my 1981 (fifth edition), the lower DX figure does get a chance, but his DX is adjusted by the differerence in DX scores. Checking Advanced Melee (1980) the lower DX figure is once again unable to attack.

What version do you guys use, and probably more importantly, what version does Steve use?

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

...

What version do you guys use, and probably more importantly, what version does Steve use?

Hi Chris,
We used the one where a low DX figure could attack someone leaving at a DX negative.

Rick

[pyratejohn]

I only recall using the "does not get an attack" version. I must admit the "attack at reduced dex" looks more sporting, except it nerfs Disengage when the dex difference is minimal.

[Chris Rice]

Doesn’t the original rule mean that you can effectively “never get a chance to hit” a higher DX figure if they keep disengaging from you? (Assuming they have room to manoeuvre and it’s not a multiple figure combat). I seem to remember this caused problems when we used it, as a high DX Halfling with Dagger Marksmanship became almost invincible. Nevertheless, the simplicity of it has appeal. I also take the point that if you do it the other way, and DX is similar, disengage becomes less attractive. I’m in two minds.

[larsdangly]

A high DX figure disengages without threat of attack from the low DX figure. This is the only version that makes any sense to me, given how initiative and order of actions works through the rest of the game.

[Skarg]

We played that Disengage let you Disengage without being attacked. We didn't consider the 5th edition non-advanced Melee rule, IIRC because we didn't know about it. I don't remember it ever actually causing a problem in our games.

Terrain or multiple foes or ranged attacks or 2-hex jabs can catch someone with higher adjDX who disengages. Someone with a ranged weapon can't use this to just slaughter you from 2 hexes away, because Disengage is their action.

I can see some cases where it could seem wrong or annoying if someone were always Disengaging and there were no terrain or allies to corner them with.

On the other hand, I think it might play out ok from a making-sense perspective, even in a one-on-one with no terrain, and even if the evader has lower MA than the aggressor. If someone is materially quicker than you are and there's nothing to corner them with, it's can be hard to catch them and hit them with something.

e.g. Bullfighting - bull has higher MA, matadors need higher DX... though of course there's a species (IQ in TFT) difference...

I would use the Waiting For An Opening optional rule (Advanced Melee, page 20) and allow the person being disengaged from to use it. That gives them a +1 DX for next turn, and a +2 if it happens again. That means you actually need an adjDX 3 higher than someone to be sure you can disengage from them continually.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I really mind the option to attack someone who's disengaging at that DX penalty.

(I also think that Disengagement shouldn't prevent moving away during the Movement Phase, but that the consequence should be an opportunity for engaged enemies to attack you as you leave them.)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A high DX figure disengages without threat of attack from the low DX figure. This is the only version that makes any sense to me, given how initiative and order of actions works through the rest of the game.

Hi all, larsdangly,
We much preferred the rule that came in the later version of Melee which allowed you to hit people who are disengaging from you (at a penalty based on the DX difference), as they step back.

The reason was fights like this...

Agim the Agile is an elf with a really high DX, say: ST 6, DX 18, IQ 8. When fighting a bunch of melee guys with swords, Agim is a few paces in front of his friends. The enemy charges forward. Agim disengages. They charge forward again next turn. Agim again disengages. Repeat forever.

Meanwhile Agim's friends used bows and spells to murder the swordsmen. Agim is totally immune to non-pole weapon melee fighters, unless they can surround him.

After a few years of this sort of thing popping up in combat all the time, we found we preferred the improved rules in (5th?) edition Melee. We preferred that disengaging from a big melee is risky.

From my experience with the SCA, it is not trivial to withdraw from a Melee.

Warm regards, Rick.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

From my experience with the SCA, it is not trivial to withdraw from a Melee.

Same experience... both rapier and heavy - breaking engagement is risky.

[larsdangly]

I don't have a problem with a higher DX combatant being able to disengage indefinitely. This is the only mechanism the game provides for a quick person outpacing a slow person. Because movement order follows initiative and initiative is arbitrary (high roll on d6), being fast - even having a higher MA - is no assurance that you won't get engaged by someone within 10 hexes of you. So, even if your intent is to run away as directly and quickly as possible, you have a 50:50 chance of being run to ground by a slower person. I prefer that the game provide a mechanism for fast people giving slow people the slip.

[Terquem]

I've played with ideas like Disengaging required a successful Dex roll